[I have copied more than usual and snipped less than usual in an effort to
keep the thread of thought here. If you can't track with that, hit "delete"
now.]
From: Jim Carr <jac@scri.fsu.edu>
>"Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net> wrote:
>>
>> BTW -- just looked at 3.3A and 3.3B and I don't find them ambiguous at
all.
>> Well, maybe a little, but it is language use, not numbers.
>
> Since I disagree with your interpretation, the language must be
> ambiguous. Yes, I would _like_ to read it the way you do (and
> the way it was apparently interpreted at Nationals), but since
> I cannot imagine why anyone would put "full height" in 3.3A if
> "minimum height" is acceptable, I can only read it as forbidding
> the use of upper body restraints (including Turner straps) if the
> bar is allowed only because of the 'convenience' exception.
I agree. If you have the shorter roll bar so it fits under the soft top,
it's the stock shoulder belts or nothing. I'd suggest you wear a serious
lap belt over the stock harness. Not the other way around, as you don't
want the stock lap belt to press the clunky buckle on the comp belt into
your soft parts.
>> First, 3.3A says the full harness "may not be used" be used in an open
car
>> without roll bars "meeting the full Height requirement of Appendix C. So
now
>> you know a roll bar is required.
>
No. Now you know that aftermarket shoulder harnesses and Turner belts may
not be used in an open car without a roll bar that reaches to the top of the
driver helmet when the driver in normal driving position. Roll bars are not
required in open cars in Stock and Street Prepared.
> it would seem that there will be cases where a
> roll bar that is allowed to be on the car by Appendix C and 3.3B
> is not sufficient to permit the use of upper body restraints.
Yes.
> Otherwise, why the caveat?
Why, indeed.
>> Second, Appendix C says "It is strongly suggested" (the word "required"
is
>> never used) that the roll bar be at least 3 inches above the driver's
helmet.
>> This is funny in that the roadracing GCR specifies 2 inches, but that is
>> irrelevant.
Yes. It is irelevant. They also suggest that you have a GCR roll bar,
whatever that is. Not relevant to the real rules, just a suggestion.
> It also requires that it be above the helmet, then provides an exception.
>
>> Third, 3.3B says that as a minimum a roll bar "must" conform to Appendix
C.
>
> BTW, I think this can be read as a total ban on "style bars", which
> are either roll bars that do not meet Appendix C or braces that are
> in violation of another rule. Sticky item for first-timers, however.
Right. If you have a roll bar, it must meet Appendix C. The Kirk roll bar
in my Midget wouldn't be high enough to pass. Kirk must have meant it for a
race car with a lie-down seat. Darn thing could have been 4 inches higher
and still fit under the top!
>> Add that to the "may not" language of 3.3A and I guess that takes care of
>> "strongly suggested." (except that my car, built to GCR rules, only needs
>> the 2" clearance. But that is irrelevant for you).
Yes, since helmet height is all that is required.
> I don't see your point here. I always assumed that the wording
> in 3.3B concerned your next item.
>
>> Fourth, it states a specific exception for Stock/SP vehicles that permits
>> the "highest possible height which fits within a factory specified
removable
>> top."
>>
>> Conclusion: You have an SP car, thus a roll bar that barely lets you put
the
>> top up is legal to let you run full harness in Solo II.
Nope. It's legal to run, but not with an aftermarket harness. Stock
harness only if the bar does not reach as high as your helmet top.
> My conclusion is that such a bar is an exceptional case, one that is
> allowed to be on the car by 3.3A (anything else being an illegal brace)
> but that does not meet the _full_height_ requirement of Appendix C unless
> the top of your helmet is even with or below the top of that bar.
>
> To clarify, perhaps you could state what roll bar would be allowed by
> 3.3A
3.3A is not about what roll bars are allowed. It is about what seat belts
are allowed and required.
>but not meet the "full height" requirement of 3.3B?
A roll bar which does not meet the height requirements of Appendix C (top of
helmet at normal driving position) may be used on a Stock or SP car if the
roll bar is as high as it can be and still allow the use of the factory top.
In such an instance, non-stock upper body restraints may not be used.
>If there are
> none,
Clearly there are some. The shape of some tops require this.
>that language should be removed from 3.3B.
Although the language is somewhat scattered, it is logical. Removing
language from 3.3B is not necessary.
I don't see what the question is. It is all perfectly clear to me.
Phil Ethier Saint Paul Minnesota USA
Lotus Europa, VW Quantum Syncro, Chev Suburban
LOON, TCVWC, MAC
pethier@isd.net http://www.visi.com/mac/
|