Time to change the glass rule to match the rest !

[Ogren-Engineering]

 Our " remove the glass" rule was made by two guys that could not read the SCCA rule book.  They read that glass must be removed for all SCCA classes.They were wrong be we got stuck with a crappy rule that reduces the cross over  of cars to Chumpcar. 

 How can we change it?  

 Maybe  have a glass deposit? 100$  cash on hand for a sweeper fee if you lay glass on the track? 

 Facts are , very seldom does glass get dumped on the track by cars with full glass.  They hit much lower  pieces like bumpers, fenders etc. 

[jmabarone]

I thought the point of the 3M film rule was to allow people to run their glass windows.  

[tommytipover]

I think he is saying even that is unnecessary.  Tempered glass really poses little risk to race tracks. It turns into little pebbles when it breaks, it's not like there are shards of wrist-slashing, tire-stabbing  glass on the track when a quarter glass breaks. Connecting rods pose a bigger risk to tires  

[rod rammage]

I would be fine with glass that is still required to have clear protective film applied. Give the poor perishing corner marshals a break.

[reidry]

Chumpcar has the no helmet cam right.  Adding mass and a handle to your helmet is a bad idea.

 

IMHO Chumpcar has the glass rules wrong. 

 

More side view mirrors get shattered on track than rear and hatch glass.  We got rubbed by a neon in a recent SCCA sprint race and lost just the glass and backing plate out of our passenger wing mirror.

 

Rule 9.3.3 requiring aluminum safety straps on the OUTSIDE of polycarbonate rear windows or hatches presumes that ALL competition cars are producing positive pressure on the INTERIOR of the rear window or hatch - this is profoundly not true.

 

Rules 9.3.5.1 and 9.3.5.2 allowing NACA ducts and 3" holes are also problematic for the same reason.  By restricting the location of vent holes Chumpcar is presuming airflow in these locations will be through the cabin and out over the rear bodywork.  This is not always true and can result in a competition vehicle configuration that meets the rules but produces levels of carbon monoxide inside the cabin that make the vehicle unsafe to operate and potentially deadly.

 

Rules 4.7.2 and 9.3.5.1 are confusing.  Per Phil the intent is to allow one NACA duct, however the rules read as if you could place one NACA duct in each of the rear side windows.

 

I sent Mike a petition to clarify the NACA duct wording back in March, I certainly think the glass rules should be revisited.  Personally I don't see the need for interior and exterior lamination with clear safety film, I am not aware of another sanctioning body that requires it.

 

Ryan

Empty Pockets Racing

[Ogren-Engineering]

 If one of you guys would write one up , that would be cool. Let us know so that we can send  positive reinforcement.

 Thanks,MM