new roll cage rules...

[dmwhite]

I've been reading through the draft rules and have some concerns regarding the roll cage rules, specifically the proposed tubing thickness requirements....the new requirements won't affect cars that have logbooks issued before 4/1/06 but may have a large impact on people that are currently buidling a race car, if they have already installed a cage...

lets take the example of someone building an IP e36 M3...if they have already installed a cage using 1.75x0.095 tubing, which is allowed in the current (2005) cr rules and NASA rules (i mention nasa because the draft roll cage rules are very similar to the nasa rules), this cage will not be legal under the new draft rules....being over 2500 lbs with driver (for current bmw rules) and under 3000 lbs without driver (nasa rules), qualify it for using that size tubing...with the proposed rules, since the car will have to be over 3000 lbs with driver and fuel (3048 lbs min weight), they will have to use 1.75x0.120 tubing...

in this example, if the car doesnt have a logbook issued by 4/1/06, they will have to install a new cage to be legal in bmwcca cr...i know of a few people that might fall into this category (currently building for IP and recently had a cage installed)

portions of the rules are listed below...note that the proposed bmwcca cr rules are very similar to the NASA rules except for the vehicle weight (with driver vs without driver)

2005 bmwcca cr rules, Appendix A

The main and front hoops and fore and aft braces must have the following minimum diameter and wall thickness based upon the maximum weight of the race car with the driver, all fluids and a full fuel supply:

Over 2500 lbs
Mild Steel 1.75” x .095” OR 1.50” x .120”
Alloy Steel 1.50” x .095”

NASA ccr

15.6.18 Roll Cage Tubing Sizes
For the purposes of determining roll bar tubing sizes, vehicle weight is as raced, but without fuel and driver. Note: There is an allowance of minus 0.010 inches on all tubing thicknesses. Minimum tubing size for the roll cage is:

2201 - 3000 lbs.
1.500” x 0.120” DOM/Alloy/Seamless
1.750” x 0.095” DOM/Alloy/Seamless
1.750” x 0.120” ERW* (No issuance of log books for cars with ERW cages 04/30/03)
*Note- Specifications listed for reference for inspection of grandfathered vehicles.

2006 draft bmwcca cr rules, Appendix A

1 B. Vehicles issued logbooks prior to 1 April 2006 may have construction other than described below. These vehicles are “grandfathered” and may continue participation in BMW CCA Club Racing.

18. Roll Cage Tubing Sizes
A. For the purposes of determining roll bar tubing sizes, vehicle weight is as
raced, with fuel and driver. Note: There is an allowance of minus 0.010
inches on all tubing thicknesses. Minimum tubing size for the roll cage is:

4. 3001 - 4000 lbs.
a. 1.750” x .120” DOM/Alloy/Seamless.
b. No ERW allowed.

What are your thoughs on this?

should the proposed rules:
1. allow a "grace period" for people that already have legal (according to the current rules) cages to get a logbook and be grandfathered in?
2. use weights without driver and fuel?
3. go unchanged possibly excluding some potential racers?

note: I have no problem with the new tubing size requirements (they wont affect my car anyway), i'm just worried that they may have a huge impact on some people that are almost finished building their car but won't be able to get a logbook issued by 4/1/06...

[vjlax18]

Great. I'm glad the car is still in the planning phase.

I guess I'm going to have to switch to Geico.

[JamesM3M5]

That seems to be overkill. Most of the popular classes of cars are right at the bottom end of the 3001-4000lb window that the rules show. Even a bare-bones basic 6-point (hoop, two down bars, diagonal, harness bar, door bars, roof bar, and a-pillar bars) will prevent any roof collapse in any real-world accident. That's a 24.4% increase in tubing weight without the commensurate increase in bending strength. Yes, it will be stronger in bending, but not 24.4% stronger, since the added wall thickness is on the interior of the tube. If they want stronger chassis, they should mandate better design, not thicker tubing. This isn't NASCAR or the NHRA. But that's just my humble opinion.

Also considering the cost of steel, that's going to mean materials costs is much higher, probably more than 25% higher, for the same length of material.

[Hammm3]

This one just make me say why? Did something happen that we don't know about. Are we unsafe at 0.095? (I don't think so, but what do I know) David did you send anything to our new chair? I also know of two that this will impact, think of the DE guy that put a cage in and is slowly building his car over a few years.

[dmwhite]

This one just make me say why? Did something happen that we don't know about. Are we unsafe at 0.095? (I don't think so, but what do I know) David did you send anything to our new chair? I also know of two that this will impact, think of the DE guy that put a cage in and is slowly building his car over a few years.

yeah, i sent an email to the new cr chair, is there anyone else i should contact about it?

i also know of at least 2 people that may be affected by this...it seems like we would get a little more warning before a change like this (i'm thinking back to the advanced notice of remote res. shocks becoming illegal in prepared)...

when i first read the new size requirements i missed the "grandfather clause" and about freaked out, lol...

[rmm3]

What about ITS/JP cars? If they have a SCCA log book will that work after 2006? Just wondering I'm almost finished with mine and I put in 1.75x.095 tubing. The car won't be raced much in BMW, but I would like to know if it would be ok if I ever wanted to or sell my D-mod car.


-Rick

[Scho]

That seems to be overkill.

Also considering the cost of steel, that's going to mean materials costs is much higher, probably more than 25% higher, for the same length of material.

These were my first two observations. .095" thick is plenty for a car that weighs what most Prepared cars weigh in at.

Also, steel has already increased in price significantly this year since China seems to be buying it all up.

I dont know the reasoning behind this, but am curious to know.

[sawbones]

This one just make me say why? Did something happen that we don't know about. Are we unsafe at 0.095? (I don't think so, but what do I know) David did you send anything to our new chair? I also know of two that this will impact, think of the DE guy that put a cage in and is slowly building his car over a few years.

I'm one of the guys that this will most likely affect. My cage was completed last week. I haven't gotten in touch with the builder yet to see what was put in, but it was SCCA, NASA & BMWCCA legal as of last week. Looks like the BMWCCA copied the SCCA & NASA rules, but the determination of vehicle weight is different . I'm truely hoping this is a correctable oversight. If not, I and others may have just blown a crapload of money setting up a car to race in a series that the car is no longer legal for.

Who do I need to email? And I would ask those who are already licensed to help with an email to the rules comittee as well.

Craig

[scottbm3]

yeah, i sent an email to the new cr chair, is there anyone else i should contact about it?

i also know of at least 2 people that may be affected by this...it seems like we would get a little more warning before a change like this (i'm thinking back to the advanced notice of remote res. shocks becoming illegal in prepared)...

when i first read the new size requirements i missed the "grandfather clause" and about freaked out, lol...

I thought Dave was on vacation in Europe for 2 weeks. Maybe he took his laptop with him

[badmonkey]

As someone who had an "IP" cage installed some months back compliant with
the '05 rule, in anticipation of doing some racing in 2006. But due to
circumstances (baby, house, etc.) may not be able to race or get a log book
before 4/1/06, this would definately have a negative impact. I'm all for the
clarifications being proposed by the new regime, but if I have to change out
a new cage for slightly thicker wall tube just to race w/ BMWCCA, forget it.
That is a significant, and potentially very costly, change to drop on amatuer
racers on such short notice.

-John

[badmonkey]

Who do I need to email? And I would ask those who are already licensed to help with an email to the rules comittee as well.

Craig

What he said..

-John

[Scho]

As someone who had an "IP" cage installed some months back compliant with
the '05 rule, in anticipation of doing some racing in 2006. But due to
circumstances (baby, house, etc.) may not be able to race or get a log book
before 4/1/06, this would definately have a negative impact. I'm all for the
clarifications being proposed by the new regime, but if I have to change out
a new cage for slightly thicker wall tube just to race w/ BMWCCA, forget it.
That is a significant, and potentially very costly, change to drop on amatuer
racers on such short notice.

-John

I think there are several people in your shoes who have been preparing a car to race and the new rules will basically prevent those people from racing this year or possibly ever. I think the rules need to remain as they were in 2005. There is NO need to change them.

[sawbones]

I think there are several people in your shoes who have been preparing a car to race and the new rules will basically prevent those people from racing this year or possibly ever. I think the rules need to remain as they were in 2005. There is NO need to change them.

I couldn't agree more. I just sent an email to the cr chair with my concerns. I encourage everyone to do the same. It is virtually impossible for me to get a log book before April 1st up here in the northeast. I suggested reverting back to the 2005 rules, utilizing the NASA & SCCA rule regarding weight (i.e. WITHOUT driver & fuel) or extending the grace period for such a major change to at least through the entire 2006 season.

I can eat the cost of my now illegal Turner rear camber arms. I cannot eat the price of a brand new cage.

[badmonkey]

I think there are several people in your shoes who have been preparing a car to race and the new rules will basically prevent those people from racing this year or possibly ever. I think the rules need to remain as they were in 2005. There is NO need to change them.

If this becomes a new rule, I'll sell the car to someone looking to race before
4/1/06 who can make use of my currently legal cage. Once sold, no way in
hell would I waste my time with BMWCCA again.

-John

[badmonkey]

I couldn't agree more. I just sent an email to the cr chair with my concerns. I encourage everyone to do the same. It is virtually impossible for me to get a log book before April 1st up here in the northeast. I suggested reverting back to the 2005 rules, utilizing the NASA & SCCA rule regarding weight (i.e. WITHOUT driver & fuel) or extending the grace period for such a major change to at least through the entire 2006 season.

I can eat the cost of my now illegal Turner rear camber arms. I cannot eat the price of a brand new cage.

Got an email addy handy?

I was also already irritated about the rear lower control arms, but the cage?


..

[scottbm3]

Got an email addy handy?

I was also already irritated about the rear lower control arms, but the cage?


..

crchair@davidmcintyre.org

[TC Design]

While I agree that this rule does not make sense, most of you should be able to get a log book with-in the four month time frame. Remember, your car does not have to be the class winning car to get a log book, just needs to meet the safety and other required rules. John B. your car may only need a fire extinguisher to get a log book at this point...

-tony (authorized to do CCA log books)

[scottbm3]

While I agree that this rule does not make sense, most of you should be able to get a log book with-in the four month time frame. Remember, your car does not have to be the class winning car to get a log book, just needs to meet the safety and other required rules. John B. your car may only need a fire extinguisher to get a log book at this point...

-tony (authorized to do CCA log books)

They would also have to be issued a CR license. Alot of guys have built or are building their cars and are going through the process to get their license, and still need DE's, race school etc. I don't believe they can get a log book before the license unless they bought a car that already had one issued.

[B.Watts]

They would also have to be issued a CR license. Alot of guys have built or are building their cars and are going through the process to get their license, and still need DE's, race school etc. I don't believe they can get a log book before the license unless they bought a car that already had one issued.

I haven't checked the rules, but I'm not aware of any requirement of a license before a car can be logbooked. The book goes with the car, not the licensee. I've had multiple cars logged for SCCA without ever having to show a license.

[sawbones]

While I agree that this rule does not make sense, most of you should be able to get a log book with-in the four month time frame. Remember, your car does not have to be the class winning car to get a log book, just needs to meet the safety and other required rules. John B. your car may only need a fire extinguisher to get a log book at this point...

-tony (authorized to do CCA log books)

That's fine for those who are already licesensed. But, I am not. I'm assuming you need a BMWCCA license for a log book. I was planning on doing a BMWCCA race school and then applying. Or at least a couple SCCA schools in the spring before applying. Looks like I'll just have to send in the application now and see what happens.

[sawbones]

I haven't checked the rules, but I'm not aware of any requirement of a license before a car can be logbooked. The book goes with the car, not the licensee. I've had multiple cars logged for SCCA without ever having to show a license.

I hope you're right!!!

[B.Watts]

Here's the logbook info...I don't see a requirement to be licensed first:

http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com/stat...ms/logbook.htm

[scottbm3]

I haven't checked the rules, but I'm not aware of any requirement of a license before a car can be logbooked. The book goes with the car, not the licensee. I've had multiple cars logged for SCCA without ever having to show a license.

Maybe, I thought Fran issued logbooks to racers when they are approved for their CR license. I understand that books go with the cars, but I think you have to go through the license process in CR to get a logbook issued to a "new" car. If not then they should get them asap.

I looked in the rules and there is no section on logbooks??? I know there was a section in the old application form, but can't get to that anymore, since they changed to online app. Oh well I'm sure someone will clear it up.

[B.Watts]

I linked to the website section on logbooks above. It appears to me that you can order a logbook for the car for $50 (including the sticker package for the car as well).

[scottbm3]

Here's the logbook info...I don't see a requirement to be licensed first:

http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com/stat...ms/logbook.htm

I doesn't say it outright, but implies it by saying that CR license applicants will be issued a logbook, if the car they have does not have one already issued. I hope these guy's can get a logbook issued without one. It sure will help keep some racers and save others alot of money.