Rocky Entriken <rocky@tri.net> wrote:
>
> > To clarify, perhaps you could state what roll bar would be allowed by
> > 3.3A but not meet the "full height" requirement of 3.3B? If there are
> > none, that language should be removed from 3.3B.
>
> Any in a car that fits "the following exception: in open cars ... competing
> in Stock and Street Prepared categories, the roll bar height may be reduced
> from Appendix C requirements to the highest possible height whiuch fits
> within a factory specified removable top, when the top is installed." --
> quoting the language of 3.3B.
That would say that you agree with me that no upper body restraints
are allowed if the rollbar is only considered legal under that
exception, i.e. fits under the convertible top but is not above
the driver's helmet. You seemed to argue the opposite initially.
Is this a case where aftermarket upper body restraints are illegal?
Is this what they ruled in Kansas?
> 3.3A states a rule. 3.3B then states a limited exception. IF your car falls
> within the exception's limits, you may then apply it. If not, you can't.
That still does not explain why "full height" appears in the upper
body restraint rule, unless it was meant to exclude bars that were
allowed under that limited exception. Perhaps we agree, but your
statement about "applying" the rule remains vague.
You see, I don't see 3.3B as providing an exception that allows
upper body restraints, since they are not mentioned; I see it as
providing an exception that makes the extra language in 3.3A
necessary for safety reasons. The fact is that non-factory upper
body restraints that make it impossible for the upper body to
move are not safe if the helmet can touch the ground, and IMO
that can be the only reason for the "full height" requirement.
However, I do agree that any competitor would wish it to be
interpreted as allowing upper body restraints in any car with a
3.3B-legal roll bar rather than in favor of safety, since that
is the way I also wish it read.
-- Jim (1.87m tall BS Miata driver)
|