W2W Roll Cage Rules

[Integra111]

I think the current roll cage rules regarding tube sizing and strength don't make sense. I want to propose a change to this later in the year. For now, I have put together my current information in the attached PDF document here for input. If anyone has any questions/ideas/suggestions, just let me know.

[jimbbski]

One question:

Why have you elected to not change the weight class weight range to what SCCA has gone with?

A new car built to SCCA roll cage rules would then not have a legal cage per your perposal if said car was presented to MCSCC Tech. and a request for a MCSCC log book was made.

This may already be an issue since our rules don't mirror SCCA currently but it may just not have come up.

IF MC currently requires a 1.5 DOM X .120 tubing in a car up to 2500 lbs then my car doesn't meet those requirement. Mine is built with 1.5 DOM X .095 per SCCA rules.

We need to MIRROR SCCA on this IMO!

[Integra111]

Why have you elected to not change the weight class weight range to what SCCA has gone with?

I never agreed with SCCA's original reasoning for making their switch when they did so I had no motivation to change ours. That being said, I don't exactly have any reason to oppose it, so I will make this change to my document before it ever makes it as a proposal.

This may already be an issue since our rules don't mirror SCCA currently but it may just not have come up.

Yes, it has for years.

IF MC currently requires a 1.5 DOM X .120 tubing in a car up to 2500 lbs

That is the way I interpret the rules. I could be wrong, but I am getting pretty good at reading rules.

We need to MIRROR SCCA on this IMO!

In general, I do not believe we ever need to mirror any other club. If another club does something that makes sense and is based on fact and sound logic, then I'm all for it. However, I have found many a rule that does not seem to have that background. In this case I agree we should probably not be stricter than SCCA, so I will edit the document.

[jimbbski]

I just want to understand why you choose the weight break points you did?

I would have no objection to them if we added the provision that a car built to SCCA specs is allowed. Of course if you add that provision you might as well mirror SCCA and keep it simple.

[Integra111]

I just want to understand why you choose the weight break points you did?

Those were the existing weight breaks (1500 and 2500 lbs). They were actually the original weight breaks in SCCA as well, before they changed their rules a few years back.

[gt6jason]

Those were the existing weight breaks (1500 and 2500 lbs). They were actually the original weight breaks in SCCA as well, before they changed their rules a few years back.

I'm confused, is a car that was built to a thickness spec of .095 that has been legal for 37 years in production classes now ileagal because they raised this to .120?

[Integra111]

I'm confused, is a car that was built to a thickness spec of .095 that has been legal for 37 years in production classes now illegal because they raised this to .120?

No. There is what I call a "grandfather clause" rule that says that any car must meet the cage rules that were in effect when it received it's logbook.

[Integra111]

These roll cage rules passed at the last BOD meeting. I updated the document (in the first post) based on the final presented proposal. The actual information is the same as the previous document, but the presentation (order and spacing) is a little different. The very first table in the document is the rule change, everything else is just supporting evidence.

[preith]

Late to the game with this but after just revisiting the '12 MC GCR I'm pleased to see this is being addressed. With that said I'm still concerned, x2 on jimbbski's comment - IMO the rules should mirror SCCA's, or at a minimum a clause stating SCCA log-booked cars will be allowed to compete even though they don't meet the current MC rules. I suspect this may be the case already, off the record.

The bottom line is I plan on building a car this year to SCCA cage rules using .080 tubing (W2 group per the attachment). Will I be allowed to complete in an MC sanctioned event regardless, and if so, I would REALLY like to see it in writing.

EDIT: I found the same subject thread from two years ago, same participants too, lol:
http://mcscc.org/forum/showthread.php?t=834

In my defense, regarding the rule-a-thon, I decided to take a hiatus shortly thereafter, but looking to jump back in now. And per jimbbski's comment that MC will let me run it if built to SCCA specs, that's all fine and dandy, but again, it needs to be addressed in the GCR then too.

[Integra111]

Sorry for the delay, I had stopped paying attention to this.

Persoanlly I would never build something with 0.080" wall thickness cage. All of my calculations in my proposal were made in tensile/compressive strength, in which wall thickness and diameter are "worth the same" as far as strength is concerned. In more complicated loads, wall thickness tends to be the more dominant strength adder.

Either way, my personal opinion has no bearing. I put together the rules as I saw them, with the input I had at the time, and that is finished. I am now done working on these rules. If you would like to see an additional change, you will need to make the proposal/motion yourself or through your club steward (if you are Salt Creek, let me know, as I am your representative). I have no problem with anyone making additional changes.