Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: Milwaukee Midget on May 19, 2011, 07:48:40 PM
-
I'll no doubt have to get an official ruling, but let's discuss . . .
If one were to install their window net in such a manner that the rear of it was inside the plane of the head restraint and hoop, and the net extended past the front of the helmet, would that meet the 3.A.3 requirement?
Here's a mock-up of what I'm thinking - and no laughing at my sewing skills, thankyouverymuch . . .
(http://i361.photobucket.com/albums/oo58/milwaukeemidget/DSCN4113.jpg)
Thoughts? Comments?
-
Dunno about the net but is the Carlap siding legal for qtr and rear windows? :-D
-
Well I installed my mock up lateral restaint's in the Stude today.
It looks like I will have to climb in, have the crew bolt the drivers side on, and hope the car doesn't catch on fire, cause there ain't no way I am going to squeze my 6'3" 250 lbs. back out with that idiotic side plate installed.
And I hope to God that Roy Creel anounces at the drivers' meeting that it is illegal to stop a race car or pit vehicle on the turn out/return roads because you no longer will have much if any peripheral vision coming off the course at speed.
My helmet is 14" from front to rear, and I am too tall to climb over the cage side bar and under the side plate.
I can't wait to watch everyone in impound trying to get out of their car's. They better have lot's of butter........................................ :-( Bob
-
Bob,
I know that you are a rare visitor to impound. Most everyone is out of the car by the time they get to me.
May I suggest you meant inspection? El Mirage in May was interesting.
DW
-
Dan, of course you are right, but if I hear "Golden Throat Glen" say report to Impound, My head will be to big to get out of the car, with or without lateral restraints.
And to be truthfull, I think I have come up with a quick release restaint plate that may allow less butter................... Bob :cheers: :cheers:
-
Bob --
You shouldn't turn off if you still have lots of speed (I know). And, in my opinion, the only way to take a car on its long journey to Impound is with a tow bar.
Stan
-
Bob, from the home of the finest butter in America, it won't help on the egress -
(http://i361.photobucket.com/albums/oo58/milwaukeemidget/Midget%20Build/DSC_0312-Copy.jpg)
I was able to do it last year at fighting weight - 6'5", 192 - actually got pretty quick at it. I installed a removable steering wheel this last winter, hoping to make it easier. The rule book makes mention of a "restraint net". It's my hope that positioning the door net past, and inside the main hoop and left head support will be sufficient. The widest part of the helmet now locates 1 1/2 inches from the main hoop on the left side, and a net should be adequate to keeping my noggin from prematurely exiting.
Dan, it was precisely your comments on the practice bail outs that have me scratching my head as to how to make this work. That lateral extension to the front of the helmet rule broadsided me. I was grateful for the addition of the "restraint net" wording - I'm just trying to figure out how to make it work legally.
Dan - Did you get my PM about a month ago regarding the blow shield?
-
Good god man, are you plastic man? You must have been a gymnast in high school. :-o Tony
-
Chris --
I guess I'm thinking outta school -- but couldn't you quick release the hardtop in an emergency?
When we get out of a roadster -- standing up is good enuf. We don't have to trash the tonneau just to show them we're getting out.
Stan
-
Chris --
I guess I'm thinking outta school -- but couldn't you quick release the hardtop in an emergency?
Like James Bond? :-D COOL!
The top attaches with bolts on the back, clamps on the windshield frame, and I'm expecting the top will need to be further secured with straps, ala the "T-Top" rule. Additionally, there's a cross brace across the top of the cage - the opening is smaller than the door.
(http://i361.photobucket.com/albums/oo58/milwaukeemidget/Midget%20Build/DSCN4114.jpg)
I guess I'm looking for an example from somebody who has used a net to successfully conform to the new rule.
-
I asked the same question, as my window net like yours is very close to the seat. I was told by Steve Davies that I COULD NOT use the side net as the required helmet support.
So, back to the drawing board!! :-D
-
MM, the last time my body was in a contorsion like that was looking for my glass eye on the floor in a cafe booth full of fat ladies................... I was in traction for months.
What happens if you get a leg cramp? You could total that, that .... what the hell is that?
:evil:Bob
-
Well this at least show's how many racer's can fit in a midget.............(please hold the applause)
I sure would like to see some of Tony's Avitar All Star's ingress or egress that car........... :-o :-o :- Bob
-
Will they allow you to use a swing-out side bar?
Doug :? :cheers: :cheers:
-
I sure would like to see some of Tony's Avitar All Star's ingress or egress that car........... :-o :-o :- Bob
I'll be right there waiting for 'em.
"Here, honey, hold this steering wheel, I'll grab the shifter - or - I can hold the wheel and you can . . ." :wink:
Will they allow you to use a swing-out side bar?
Doug :? :cheers: :cheers:
That's one I'm trying to engineer, but the rule specifically says a net is a possibility, and I'm still looking for some applications that incorporate that. Two nets? Maybe a triangular sprint car net AND a door net?
-
According to waht Steve told me yesterday, a swing out bar IS allowed. He also mentioned that although nets are allowed, they must be very stiff, less than 2" deflection. Nets had been my planned solution, but I am looking at adding a diagonal bar on the right, and either a diagonal or swing out on the left.
-
MM, I have both a slanted door bar like yours ( although higher at the B pillar) and a horizontal swing out door bar.
To make this work I have a double net with the top one dropping down to the horizontal bar and the bottom one from the horizontal bar down.
I have had no problem with tech inspections as I had them both custom made to make sure there are no places where my arms or feet can protrude.
I would not, however, want to imply that this excludes any car from the lateral helmet support rule.
What I am currently working on is a removable extension for the driver's side helmet support that incorporates a " slide in" male/female reciever with quick release pins.
As my previous sentence states, if I can make it work, you would climb in, then slide the extension in place and insert the pins from the driver's inboard side with large pull rings (I wear SFI 20 gloves) so for emergency egress the driver would simply pull the pins, pull the extension forward, and hopefully quickly emerge from the cage.
Quite frankly, if this doesn't pass muster, I am a dead duck.
I have spent about eight hours trying out different attachment method's and nothing else will allow me to climb in or out with my helmet and head/neck restraint on. If you are on fire, you don't have time to try and remove your helmet which in my case is nearly impossible anyway.
For a rule intended to increase safety, this one is a definate Edsel.
Without trying to be a alarmist, I fear someone may suffer dire consequences from this rule.
Since Kiwi Steve seems to be the champion of this rule, I would like to invite him to post how he think's this rule should be interpreted in tight situations like yours.
This has been my gripe for years...rules being implemented withoout having reasonable knowledge about implementation and effect. Bob
-
Bob - something like this? It's a mock-up made of PVC and Lexan - just happen to have some of THAT stuff lying around these days . . .
(http://i361.photobucket.com/albums/oo58/milwaukeemidget/Midget%20Build/DSCN4238.jpg)
I'm thinking a verticle hitch pin through the pipe and the bung.
-
I don't see why not. I made mine ( which is a different set up from what you have shown) out of 1/4 inch aluminum, and you could always add a stiffener (flat bar, angle or solid rod) on the outside if you have room.
Mine is tied into the existing flat plate lateral support by making a sandwich bracket .
My extension is 8 1/2 inches showing, but it slides into the sandwich (female) slot 6 inches, and then I added four quick release pins.
Just remember that after you add the 1" SFI padding (JAZ Products) you only have 1" max to your helmet on each side.
You could either stack more plates to the inside, or a piece of tube, or what ever........ Bob
p.s. Sorry I am too stupid to post pictures, but I don't have any teenager's around, and I am allergic to directions..............
-
Chris,
if you had a piece of sliding fit pipe that went around the bar there you could have the helmet support swing away,
it could be spring loaded so you pull it against spring tension into position,
then you have a locating pin to lock it in position .
The pin should be spring loaded so as to pop out when released,
it should also be captive, you pull on the chain ( which is attached to an R clip or some such through the pin)
the pin pops out the helmet bar swings sideways and then you can do your chinese contortionist act.....
-
Chris,
if you had a piece of sliding fit pipe that went around the bar there you could have the helmet support swing away,
it could be spring loaded so you pull it against spring tension into position,
Doc, great idea (as usual), but it won't quite clear the door opening - opposite side photo -
(http://i361.photobucket.com/albums/oo58/milwaukeemidget/Midget%20Build/DSCN4103.jpg)
This may well be the best bet at this point.
-
Make a plate that slides straight back under spring tension, that's even easier...it can have a brace on the back, whatever, it doesn't even have to slide straight back either, it can follow the line of the top there where it curves in towards the back window.
-
Make a plate that slides straight back under spring tension, that's even easier...it can have a brace on the back, whatever, it doesn't even have to slide straight back either, it can follow the line of the top there where it curves in towards the back window.
A pocket-door arrangement, I think you're saying? Hmmm - maintaining the padding and the helmet clearance might be tough, but that could be workable. Maybe just integrate it into the existing head brace and bolt it to the hoop?
Ooooh - springs, buttresses, drop-pins - clanking metal. Too bad there's no room for the boy wonder on the passenger side - we could keep Gotham crime free for weeks!
Seriously, though, a good idea.
Doc, your other idea got me thinking that I could do a sliding collar on the horizontal bar that runs parallel to the top of the door opening, and pins to the cage with the impending upper door net rod. Unlock the front of the net, pull back the net with the rod, drop the net with the attached pin, flip up the restraint, and bingo, like Houdini, I'm out.
Thanks - I WILL figure this out.
I have no choice - the die is cast.
-
Hotnuts was here.
-
He is still here...................... In the picture with the new extension removed, what is hard to see is where the paint is removed from the existing lateral restraint, there is a slot which is part of the original bracing. That is where the long leg of the extension slides into and provides deflection resistence to the entire piece. Obviously I am not done but it gives you a rough idea on helping a arthritic 64 year old fat man get out in a hurry............ Bob, with a big assist to the fabulous one, Mr. Jonny Hotnut's and his computer magic.............
-
Bob, Jonny, thanks for posting the pics. Trying to apply this rule to confined production cars has been a headache at best. Nice work - your solution looks great, and I'm hoping that it doesn't cause any undue heartache in a worst-case scenario.
Anyone else trying to make this deal work on a door slammer?
-
My solution was to mount a full containment seat very far back from dash, allowing the most door opening to get in and to slide back into the seat that has built in hip, rib, shoulder and head restraints.
(http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii43/cajunkid5690/Lateral%20Support%20Test/HelmetTest030.jpg)
(http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii43/cajunkid5690/Lateral%20Support%20Test/HelmetTest018.jpg)
(http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii43/cajunkid5690/Lateral%20Support%20Test/HelmetTest016.jpg)
(http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii43/cajunkid5690/Lateral%20Support%20Test/HelmetTest015.jpg)
In these photos the helmet is not fully against the head rest as I am when buckeled in,,, I was having trouble keeping a helmet in there while trying to take the picture.
Charles
-
Charles, my only question is: the ISP padding appears to taper toward's the front.
If so, does it meet the criterea for 2 inches to structure, and 1 inch to helmet rule?
Does the rule mean that at the furthermost forward point of the lateral restaint the total width can only be four inches to structure (helmet width plus four inches minus two for SFI 1" padding)
I hope it does not, and means that at that point the helmet width is moot.
It would save a lot of us a lot of headaches.
Dan, could you help us here? I would hate to see guy's like Charles tow across the Nation and fail tech. Thanks, Bob
-
(http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/217745_1018872988136_1114496579_30074080_8458_n.jpg)
This is how mine look currently, will have to extend the bars a bit to reach the end of the helmet.
The Drivers side bar fits over a solid 1.5(ish) stub and has a pull pin. After the run a pull of the pin (manually backed up but uses a cable and air cylinder) the bar is removed to facilitate more egress. This system has worked great for 4 years now.
Note the genuine Holstein cow hide rapped SFI padding headrest (that just how I roll). I had an inspector say the hide was a fire concern....that is until I pulled out my Holstein welding gloves!
-stupid I know, but still makes me laugh.
~JH
-
Y'er still a stinking preevert..................... :evil:
-
Jonny - your Fiat is probably the one door slammer on the salt with less interior space than mine. :cheers:
-
........... and his head is fatter (as seen in another post)........... :roll:
-
LOL :-D :cheers:
-
Charles, my only question is: the ISP padding appears to taper toward's the front.
If so, does it meet the criterea for 2 inches to structure, and 1 inch to helmet rule?
Does the rule mean that at the furthermost forward point of the lateral restaint the total width can only be four inches to structure (helmet width plus four inches minus two for SFI 1" padding)
I hope it does not, and means that at that point the helmet width is moot.
It would save a lot of us a lot of headaches.
Dan, could you help us here? I would hate to see guy's like Charles tow across the Nation and fail tech. Thanks, Bob
Bob the taper in the pics is an optical illusion,,, there is less than 1 inch between my helmet and the padding on each side and and less than 2 inch per side when padding is removed. So it sure does meet the rules when you put a tape to it,,,,
I will try for better pics,, as you are spot on,,I would hate to twow that far and be turned away.
Charles
-
I think Bob Drury is right with his reference to the clearance at the front of the helmet. For it to meet this requirement the shape of the restraint would have to be "C" shaped from the top view. This would have to be entered from below the restraint to get the helmet in. Really? :roll:
My shoulders rub the front upright hoop during entry and the front of the helmet is just a little more than 3" behind that.
As far as using the sliding tube or pin inside of a tube and locating it with a pull pin that would really make a fire trap in an accident where something is likely to get tweaked. Forget that . Please.
Hans device users are instructed to use 2" shoulder harnesses and mount the straps approximately straight back. Wonder why a 3" strap was required before and wrapped the shoulder more by anchoring it down below the shoulder 3" to 4".
C'mon fellows this isn't NASCAR where there is always a fire truck 20 seconds away. Give us a chance to get out quickly and simply as possible when after an accident we might not have all our wits about us. Let's not burn somebody badly before we rethink this.
I going to park my lakester until they come up with something better. My old D-cell took 1 second more to get out of the car with it on than off.
hitz
-
Hitz,
I am looking at page 21 of the Stand 21 HANS catalog, and there is a special highlighted block that says:"For your safety use a 3 inch harness, FIA standard homologated, with your HANS system". I contacted Deist and Simpson, and they both said that their 3 inch harness' were OK with the HANS. Somebody somewhere has their own special interpretation of how it should be. They also have proper mounting instructions for the harness to make it work. As the harness pass' over your shoulder, they want it to form a 20-40 degree V at the mounting point. Vertically they want it to have a 10-20 drgree down angle. Done right I can't see how the belts can come off.
Doug :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
The lateral restraint rule is in regardes to keeping your head/helmet where it is supposed to be... by limiting the side to side movement... seems to me with the differance in the design of all our cars there should be a "basic guideline" not hard and fast dimensions for this rule.
Once you are in the seat with helmet on in tech... if your lateral restaints limit/contain your head to a max 2" side to side movement and it looks like your head will stay put,,, you pass.. very simple,, does it matter if it goes 100% to the chin bar ? as long as it does the job designed for let us get in and out and have designs that limit movement yes, but allow ingrees/egress and not a cookie cutter blanket rule.. one size does not fit all in LSR..
As to the 2" shoulder belts with HNR... Not all HNR's require a specific size... Hans may suggest that 2" may be better,, so dont make a blanket ruling.
Charles
-
Charles,
The current rule book 3.A.3 states the clearance required is 2" PER side not from side to side. It may have been changed but I haven't been able to locate any changes. Seems like I read of some changes. I'll keep looking for any changes by the SCTA.
I'm with you on the per car rulings but we have to go by the book.
Love your cars.
hitz
-
Charles,
The current rule book 3.A.3 states the clearance required is 2" PER side not from side to side. It may have been changed but I haven't been able to locate any changes. Seems like I read of some changes. I'll keep looking for any changes by the SCTA.
I'm with you on the per car rulings but we have to go by the book.
Love your cars.
hitz
Thanks, I agree that the rule states 2" per side,,, but that allows a total of 4" lateral movement (assuming 100% padding compression, which can not happen)
The 2" side to side I mentioned would be 1" clearance to the padding on each side, so a total of 2 inch movement and at 50% padding compression would be less than the 4" allowed by the current rule.
Maybe my math and logic are wrong?
-
This extended lateral head restraint rule came about from the Danny Thompson video and from his shoulder harness
mounted ABOVE his shoulders-his BELTS not tightened properly.
Some of the home made solutions are a bunch of crap and dangerous. I had Butler Seats build special side restraints to fit our funny car style cage [$500], tapered at front and bottom for safe egress and ending at roll bars,now their 11/2'' short of helmet chin.
My fix turn them around and mount them in front of roll bars, no taper and leaving less room to get out
JL222
Edited by Linda to take certain comments out :-D
-
jl222,
The rule that the lateral restraints must go past the leading edge of the chin bar makes no sense... That is what is causing the difficult ingress/egress...
If you look at the video you make reference to, it clearly shows that seat had almost no latereral supports for the head or shoulders,, what little it did have where tapered/flaired out. And yes the shoulder belts where mounted well back and above the shoulders thus allowing more upward and outward movement than would have if mounted per the rule book.
By proper mounting of the belts and the lateral restraint and using a "reasonable length" lateral head restraint. that much movement would have been reduced.
I still stand by my comments that each car should be judged individually, no blanket dimensional rule.
I also used a professional built containment seat with built in lateral head, hip and shoulder restraints.
If anyone has seen the pics of my set up and feel it will not pass, please tell me now and save me the trip out there.
Charles
-
Charles, I agree with your definition of the rule.
John, I agree totaly that the rule is actually the "Danny Thompson Rule" and that his belt's had to be loose or mismounted.
I believe that this and all future rules regarding safety should have to have drawings in the rule book simillar to the roll cage drawings.
Give us something defining minimum size (square inches or height) minimum thickness, bracing requirements, or anything to help define what will pass muster.
In my case, I am trying to go with what I allready have present. What you cannot see is I built my entire head restrain as a sandwich, which wraps aroung both the front and the back of the seat plus encompasses two roll cage vertical bars.
No part of the structure is less than 1/4 inch T-6 alluminum and will not deflect in any direction unless the roll cage itself is torn from the car along with the seat.
I would suggest that all tech inspector's be given a course in peacefull resolutions and human conflict before Speedweek, cause this rule is causing all of us a lot of stress.
My resolution suggestion: Quietly let this rule die and revert to last years rule, it was hard enough to decifer, but doable. Bob
-
Seems there were 100 cars at the opening El Mirage meet in May. 1/3? of those might have been door cars, you know, Monzas, Mustangs, 'Cudas, Camaros, Trucks, Studs, etc. Wonder how they all made it through tech?
& Happy Fathers Day to all the Dads! :cheers:
-
Dyno...thats were I saw some good and bad, the good being in roadster like yours without a front roll bar to worry about.
A lot of the coupes and sedans were let by with a correction notice in log book for next time.
JL222
-
It sure would be nice to have pictures of the failed vehicles along with what corrections were recomended.
I would bet my bippy that nothing was written down as to HOW to fix them.......... Bob
-
It sure would be nice to have pictures of the failed vehicles along with what corrections were recomended.
I would bet my bippy that nothing was written down as to HOW to fix them.......... Bob
And I encourage anybody who got a 'fix-it' warning to post their experience and pics, if possible.
JL222, I totally agree with you - many of the solutions we door slammers are having to come up with are just questionable exercises in an attempt to comply with a rule - a rule that can probably be better handled with a stricter adherence to the HNR rule. Personally, I don't have a lot of time to argue with the rule this year, so I'm moving forward with what probably is a crappy idea in order to compete.
I think Charles probably has the best handle on it, but he has the luxury of somewhat bigger doors and a lot more interior space. I doubt a full containment seat could be properly constructed to fit in either Jonny's car or mine that would meet this requirement.
-
Corvettes aren't going to be any picnic :-P
-
Corvettes aren't going to be any picnic :-P
As long as the driver, crew and the tech inspectors aren't juiced up on testosterone or caffeine and take a deep breath and approach this in a calm and logical manner all can be OK...
The intent of the rule is to keep us safe and to keep out head from bobbing around left to right.
Forget the tape measure... have the driver put on his/her helmet, tighten up the shoulder belts and "see" of the lateral supports prevent the head from exiting the confines of said restraint and keep the left and right movement contained.
This "should not" be that complicated...
Charles
-
Corvettes aren't going to be any picnic :-P
As long as the driver, crew and the tech inspectors aren't juiced up on testosterone or caffeine and take a deep breath and approach this in a calm and logical manner all can be OK...
The intent of the rule is to keep us safe and to keep out head from bobbing around left to right.
Forget the tape measure... have the driver put on his/her helmet, tighten up the shoulder belts and "see" of the lateral supports prevent the head from exiting the confines of said restraint and keep the left and right movement contained.
This "should not" be that complicated...
Charles
Damn, Charles......... That's the most intelligent post I have seen posted yet. The intent of the rule, tempered with common sense should rule the day. We don't all drive "off the rack" cars and "general" rules can't always apply to "specific" applications. Let's all hope that we keep safety in mind as the primary motivation, rather than compliance with a specific generalized rule. Sometimes a rule can have the opposite effect of it's intentions......
Ed
-
Pretty much sound's like last years rule to me............. Keep in mind that this year's rule, when passed, called for the lateral restraint's to be even two inches longer than how the rule now read's.
I wonder if a single person from the SCTA safety committee, safety personel or accident investigators checked the shoulder belt mount's in the Danny Thompson car after the accident.
That is the rule that need's to be enforced in my opinion.
The rule in the 2010 book was a good rule, it just needed more clarification and a few sketch's.
-
I agree with Bob, by adding to the side restraints in my car 6 inches would leave 14 inches between that and the rollbar. There is no way I can safely egress the car with the restraint in place, and to compound the problem I need the lexan that don't roll down or is hard to kick or slug out... I am considering a swing down pinable left side restraint but right now I'm open to suggestions. I think we need to look at this again and get a rule that would work for everyone..
-
Gary, I gave a pivoting restrait addition some thought, but I couldn't think up a strong enough (deflection wise) knuckle.
I would think a good machinist could come up with one.
My other problem is that my cage is powdercoated and makes welding and grinding more difficult .
The rule would be easier to follow if a guy was starting from scratch, but in a existing enclosed car it isn't exactly a piece of cake.................... Bob
-
Ed, I am glad my super intelligence can be understood by mere mortals (and common folk too) LOL :cheers: :cheers:
Just kidding,,,
I sure hope everyone does take calm common sense and logic in mind when inspecting a car as it pertains to this obvious unpopular or at least reactionary and restrictive rule.
Charles
-
Charles, like in any tense situation, there are alway's going to be a few hothead's.
The shame is that the inspectors are only doing their job, and may or may not be allowed to propose a fix for the simple reason that if you come back with their fix and get a different inspector, he may not agree with the first guy.
Most of the old salt's are going to piss and moan, but hopefully the inspector's will be given a lot of leeway being that this is the first year of the rule.
It's the first timer's who are already stressed that may fall over dead.
I remember my first time and I don't think I took a deep breath until they signed off.
The good new's is that they are us, and don't want to send anyone home so it usually work's it self out.
I have even had a inspector come to my pit to check on a fix, to save me from having to get back in line......................... :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Bob
-
Bob, I don't think anybody is burning on the inspectors........ at least I hope. Most are over-worked volenteers that are merely inspecting a car for compliance to rules that most of them had no part in making. To expand on your thought ( and my original post), I hope that they are given the authority to deem a car "safe" rather than just "compliant"
Ed
-
Have a look at these photos of my lateral head restraint and see if they help.
We recently added a lower bar behind the seat to attach my shoulder belts to - makes a huge difference to how tightly I'm strapped in. Scream if you want photos of that too.
Miriam
-
Miriam...you forgot to say its a right side steering [U.S. pasenger seat] vehicle. were looking at the right side door.
Good job and I looked at it at EL mirage, great for cars that don't have a funny car type cage. :cheers:
JL222
-
It look's really good. I wish I had that much room at my B pillar...........
What is that padding material? It doesn't look like ISP. Nice installation. Bob
-
Looks good -- personally I'd put a bigger drawer pull or door knob on the pin. With thick gloves on it, I wouldn't want to search for it.
Stan
-
I personally recommend pinning swing outs with double acting lock pins. You can connect a lanyard to the ring and pull it to release the pin.
These double acting pins are mil spec and used for aircraft.
MUCH easier to quickly release the pin and no chance of loosing them.
~JH
http://www.jergensinc.com/site/sfg_kwik-lok%C2%AE_pins/double_acting/ring_handle/group_no=1373m
-
Jonny, I think I’m heading in your direction with this. Mocked it up yesterday with a 1x4, some PVC and fiberglass to give my cage guy an idea where we need to go. I'm thinking I'll have the tubing bent to make it parallel to the top of the cage/ Jonny, what’s the diameter on your tubing for that?
(http://i361.photobucket.com/albums/oo58/milwaukeemidget/Midget%20Build/DSCN4245.jpg)
I’m thinking a lanyard with a double acting lock pin (NOT what is in the picture, thanks for that link), attached to the upper net bar will pull the whole thing loose with one fell swoop.
(http://i361.photobucket.com/albums/oo58/milwaukeemidget/Midget%20Build/DSCN4244.jpg)
(http://i361.photobucket.com/albums/oo58/milwaukeemidget/Midget%20Build/DSCN4246.jpg)
It’s hardly what I would call an elegant solution, but it should work, and will be repairable if the rule changes.
-
Chris, I used 1.25", then added the fireproof padding.
-
I used 1 5/8X .120 (same as cage).
The pin concept should be a convenience item, I overwhelmingly suggest that you can still get out with the bar in place. Its a real pain but I can get out without removing the bar.
On the flip side at at the end of a run, when the door is open, the bar is off and all you have is clear real estate.....
nothing better.
~JH
-
I used 1 5/8X .120 (same as cage).
The pin concept should be a convenience item, I overwhelmingly suggest that you can still get out with the bar in place. Its a real pain but I can get out without removing the bar.
:-o
I'm pretty flexible for a fossil, but I AM a fossil. :-D
-
Since there is a Maxton meet this week-end, sure would be nice if somebody took some fotos of both what is GOOD, and what is BAD.........
Ed
-
I don't believe that the ECTA is requiring this type of lateral restraint, but there are cars that run both Maxton and Bonneville.
Actually, there have been two SCTA events at Elmo already. June - 58 cars, maybe 15-20 door slammers? Might be tough to find examples at Maxton, where many folks only run there.
-
Only reason I am posting is because I have to rebuild what I have already built for the second time. The first version had to much flex when bolted to the seat so the new one is welded. But what is the reasoning behind having the restraint come to the leading edge of the helmet? Would it not do the same good if it was only required to come past the center line of the helmet? If the belts and HNR are working correct no one should lung forward the way Mr. Thompson did. I to have to come up with a way to get in and out of the car with this in the way and further more how to get the seat in the car with it.
Zach
-
Yes this too puzzles me, what thought process was used to a cover ALL rule implementation. Door slammers also have the door netting on the window side.
-
When my Son and I went to DJ safety to have him fitted for a head restraint, Joe Hansen showed us the videos of the sled tests for SFI. With a properly installed and adjusted five point harness it was still possible for the body to compress enough to allow enough rotation about the pelvis to bring the head and shoulders far enough forward to be out of the "center of the helmet containment" . Note this is the whole upper torso pivoting under the shoulder belts not just the head moving forward. Without the side extensions to the containment device the head can be twisted sideways upon returning to the upright position. I was not a believer either until I saw those videos, the amount of movement was chilling. I think the next change we are all going to have to make will be to the upper shoulder belt mount putting the belt at or only one inch below the height of the shoulder with no excess length to decrease torso rotation.
-
Well let's see here. SFI certifies the belts. SFI says one type of belt stretches less than the other type. SFI certifies both the same. What the hell is going on here? Bob
-
"I think the next change we are all going to have to make will be to the upper shoulder belt mount putting the belt at or only one inch below the height of the shoulder with no excess length to decrease torso rotation."
We got "logged" on that at the May El Mirage. Now changing mount positions.
Stan
-
Per Stand 21 literature: 20-40 degree "V" angle from the mounting point to the shoulders, and 10-20 degree down angle from the top of the shoulder to the mounting point. Both 2 and 3 inch belts are OK, but 3 inch are preferred. Is this wrong? Does anybody else have numbers and angles that are different than this. It's getting close to the time to start packing, and changing this stuff on the starting line isn't easy.
Doug :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: