mod/classing question
mod/classing question
I'm thinking about installing some kind of bar to hook up a harness to (using my stock seats, since I don't want to remove them) and also to use as a camera mount too. Here is a rough sketch of what I'm talking about...would mount to the floor behind the front seats.
Would this affect classing (i.e. would it qualify as as frame bracing or anything), or would I be ok with this in STX/STU?
here's a drawing:
Would this affect classing (i.e. would it qualify as as frame bracing or anything), or would I be ok with this in STX/STU?
here's a drawing:
depending on the inspectgor, it could be construed as a chassis brace.
but, IIRC, there are specific rules listed about harness bars and their mounting and use. see the sections on that and see what they have to say.
FYI, the pic you're showing isn't exactly structurally sound. your left shoulder harness will be able to bend the bar under hard braking or other high tension on the shoulder strap. it needs to be attached to the B pillar somewhere for some stability at the top.
but, IIRC, there are specific rules listed about harness bars and their mounting and use. see the sections on that and see what they have to say.
FYI, the pic you're showing isn't exactly structurally sound. your left shoulder harness will be able to bend the bar under hard braking or other high tension on the shoulder strap. it needs to be attached to the B pillar somewhere for some stability at the top.
It's been a while, but I believe Autopower makes a bar that allows the REAR down tubes to be removed to allow the rear seats to be used as needed. I remember seeing one being installed in an M3 a few years back.
Try asking Sparco what they offer. Their bars are a very clean design.
http://www.sparcousa.com/harness_bars.asp
Or you might try AutoWeld south of you. The apparently have a design on file for a full A31 bar/cage already.
http://autoweldchassis.com
Usually these are fine for tech. Except that one "could" argue it's offering structural bracing. The only altenative in that case is a b-pillar camera mount bar but those need to be really strong to support the weight.
http://www.sparcousa.com/harness_bars.asp
Or you might try AutoWeld south of you. The apparently have a design on file for a full A31 bar/cage already.
http://autoweldchassis.com
Usually these are fine for tech. Except that one "could" argue it's offering structural bracing. The only altenative in that case is a b-pillar camera mount bar but those need to be really strong to support the weight.
just FYI, I got this email back from Doug, the national SCCA tech guru:
It appears that SCCA rules are vague as ever on this subject....what construes "structural enhancement"?? Only God knows. I wonder if leaving my roof rack on would be "structural enhancement" 
good thing I have all winter to think of something!
Hi, Josh,
The last part of 13.2.H says: “A horizontal “harness bar” may be used as part of the installation hardware for allowed driver restraints. It may serve no other purpose (e.g., structural enhancement).”
I believe the component in questions would not be compliant because it would have another purpose, structural enhancement. It may not have been intended to create structural enhancement, but it would.
A few years ago the SEB ruled on a roll bar in a Stock car that was not built to the specs in Appendix C. Even though it was marketed as a roll bar and had data to support it’s effectiveness, the SEB basically said that it wasn’t a roll bar according to Appendix C and as such was not allowed by the Stock category rules. It was allowed by 13.2.A “C&C” either because it added structural enhancement to the car.
I believe the answer would be the same today – if it’s not an Appendix C compliant roll bar, it serves another purpose as structural enhancement. Even if a harness bar is attached to the standard shoulder belt points on the B-pillar, there are some who believe its adding structural enhancement. So attachment needs to be carefully thought out.
Another thing I noticed in the thread is the idea of an “SCCA–approved roll bar.” SCCA doesn’t approve anything – it meets the SCCA rules or it doesn’t.
I’ve seen some harness bars that used heim-joints to prevent the dreaded structural enhancement.
The last part of 13.2.H says: “A horizontal “harness bar” may be used as part of the installation hardware for allowed driver restraints. It may serve no other purpose (e.g., structural enhancement).”
I believe the component in questions would not be compliant because it would have another purpose, structural enhancement. It may not have been intended to create structural enhancement, but it would.
A few years ago the SEB ruled on a roll bar in a Stock car that was not built to the specs in Appendix C. Even though it was marketed as a roll bar and had data to support it’s effectiveness, the SEB basically said that it wasn’t a roll bar according to Appendix C and as such was not allowed by the Stock category rules. It was allowed by 13.2.A “C&C” either because it added structural enhancement to the car.
I believe the answer would be the same today – if it’s not an Appendix C compliant roll bar, it serves another purpose as structural enhancement. Even if a harness bar is attached to the standard shoulder belt points on the B-pillar, there are some who believe its adding structural enhancement. So attachment needs to be carefully thought out.
Another thing I noticed in the thread is the idea of an “SCCA–approved roll bar.” SCCA doesn’t approve anything – it meets the SCCA rules or it doesn’t.
I’ve seen some harness bars that used heim-joints to prevent the dreaded structural enhancement.
good thing I have all winter to think of something!
the other point is that I would want this to be bolt-in....don't want it in the car except at events....questionable how much any bolt-in bar would brace the frame at all.
Originally Posted by Matt93SE
FYI, the pic you're showing isn't exactly structurally sound. your left shoulder harness will be able to bend the bar under hard braking or other high tension on the shoulder strap. it needs to be attached to the B pillar somewhere for some stability at the top.
Originally Posted by irish44j
the other point is that I would want this to be bolt-in....don't want it in the car except at events....questionable how much any bolt-in bar would brace the frame at all.
Originally Posted by irish44j
It appears that SCCA rules are vague as ever on this subject....what construes "structural enhancement"?? Only God knows. I wonder if leaving my roof rack on would be "structural enhancement"
Originally Posted by irish44j
good thing I have all winter to think of something!
Originally Posted by BEJAY1
Kinda like bolt-in strut tower bars don't brace at all
What I am referring to would not link any subframe sections, but would just bolt through the floor. In any case I don't run points series anyhow so might just do whatever I want and have a good time in the basement of some higher class....I autocross for fun. If I wanted to "win" I would do it in a different car than a maxima...
I'm sure the guys at Piper (who are all long-time SCCA guys) will know how to make a setup that will be STX-legal though, so I'm not too worried about it at this point.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Unclejunebug
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
10
Apr 2, 2016 05:42 AM
Stagnet04
4th Generation Classifieds (1995-1999)
2
Oct 11, 2015 08:16 PM
