Region: NNJR
Car #: 48
Year : 1996 Posts: 191
Status: Offline
posted
Having read the full rule suggestion in FastTrack I think I can devise the reasons for the CRB's decision to go this route:
It's the quote entirely in their brackets [] that's telling: [The CRB has been made aware of deficiencies in mounting of FIA homologated seats that would be mitigated by the addition of a seat back brace.]
What this tells me is they would rather tech people NOT become "Expert FIA Seat Installers" but rather become "Expert FIA Seat Back Verifiers".
That's the way I read that quote: we either mandate seat backs regardless of the type of seat (due to people not installing the FIA type properly) or we start disallowing cars with FIA seats that are missing said seat back brace.
It's a no-win for them and I can understand their position but it seems odd to arbitrarily claim to know how FIA seat manufacturers design, build, & test their seats by claiming the requirement for a back brace.
I'm sharpening my pen(cil) and getting a letter off to the CRB as I'm in agreement with the (majority of) expressed opinions here about it being a bad idea.
It may boil down to a tough decision on the SCCA's part to explicitly state how an FIA seat must be mounted with "others" being left to their own devices.
Region: NNJR
Car #: 48
Year : 1996 Posts: 191
Status: Offline
posted
Kent, Interesting read, but note they're still fixing the seat base support to the tunnel & side/rocker panel rail. In their case it's via a pair of cross bars of minimum thickness & cross section with sleeved seat bolt holes.
They don't necessarily say to not fix any bracket to whatever cage bars that might be running under the driving position but their drawings could support that statement.
Someone else mentioned the inability of the SCCA to mandate how seats are attached in a vehicle. Well, the easiest way to mandate "how" is to disallow any seat that doesn't require a seat back brace.
If the SCCA's position is to operate an organization that has member safety as it's utmost priority then they're going to have to get into mandating how seats (FIA or non-FIA) are installed and incorporate those details in the classing specifications.
Specifically where you can/can't cut or modify major portions of the vehicle frame/tub to facilitate installation to the safest level.
Quite the challenge when it comes to tiny vehicles like ours...
I don't eve know if you could route a pair of support tubes down the length of the driver's side with a Kirkey mounted to the floor without serious rail & tunnel changes.
Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991 Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
posted
Brandon,
There were a couple of points I gleaned from the FIA document: 1. Don't mount the seat to the thin sheet metal of the floorboard! 2. Don't put a back-brace on an FIA seat. It's not safe!
-------------------- Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?
Region: Lone Star
Year : 1990 Posts: 4253
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by Kent Carter: Brandon,
There were a couple of points I gleaned from the FIA document: 1. Don't mount the seat to the thin sheet metal of the floorboard! 2. Don't put a back-brace on an FIA seat. It's not safe!
I wonder if it's that much different having a back brace on those popular thin aluminum seats? I know some have thick aluminum bracing but some are just bent sheet metal.
-------------------- "Your victory is tainted! Asterisk! Asterisk!!!"--Lisa Simpson
Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991 Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
posted
Antonio,
You bring up a good point, but I think most aluminium seats are designed with reinforcement at the area where the brace is mounted. The FIA seats are really quite thin at the shoulders and have zero reinforcement for mountings.
I have one of those rather minimalistic seats and I'm giving serious thought to a much more substantial bucket.
-------------------- Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?
Region: NWR / Oregon
Car #: 88
Year : 95 Posts: 2000
Status: Offline
posted
The difference I see with an aluminum seat compared to a composite seat is that with the aluminum one, you have a more or less uniform thickness throughout the seat. You know what you're dealing with. With composites like carbon fiber or fiberglass, you can tailor the thickness to make areas stiffer than others.
Add a stiff spot to a place that wasn't meant to be stiff, suddenly you can have the back brace punch right through the seat and now you're in a world of hurt. Also with aluminum, you can drill a hole and you have to be careful the hole doesn't crack, but it's not going to delaminate. I just see an aluminum seat less sensitive to being monkeyed with than a composite seat that may have been tweaked in ways we don't know.
-------------------- Keith Novak (Will work for tires)
Region: SFR / NorCal
Car #: 72
Year : 93 Posts: 1276
Status: Offline
posted
Update given the August Fastrak...
The target keeps moving on the seat mounts. They've backed away from the seat brace, but now they're stating that you have to use "those [brackets] used when the seat was tested for homologation." Not only is that information NOT published in the homologation, most manufacturers sell multiple different mounts for the seats. Who it tech could POSSIBLY enforce this rule correctly?? My guess is that if you put a Recaro or Sparco sticker on your side mounts, they'll have to accept that as "manufacturer recommended". Those things don't even have part numbers on them!
Maybe I'm reading the proposed rule wrong. Are they saying the TYPE of mount must be the same or the very specific mount, itself, must be the same one used? If just the type, what's the purpose of the second sentence? If it is just the type, I'm OK with that.
And what does this mean?
"Unless supporting evidence is provided by the manufacturer of a series produced car that shows FIA safety cage testing for homologation included an adjustable seat mount, seats and their supports must be attached to a fixed mounting structure.”
What is a "series produced car" and what does the safety cage testing have to do with seat mounting? Does this rule only apply to series produced cars?
I'm very confused...
I contacted Recaro, and I have someone checking with the guys in Germany who oversee the actual seat testing about what sort of testing has been done with the sliders. The gentleman did mention that their ALMS and GT3 Cup Car series cars use the sliders...
I'll keep this thread updated as I learn more.
Cheers,
Dean
-------------------- NASA Nor Cal SM series Director www.molaps.com
Winner - Ford Racing Mustang Challenge Driver Shootout
Evil Genius Racing / Race Engineering / Stewart Development
Region: San Francisco
Car #: 34
Year : 1992 Posts: 2279
Status: Offline
posted
Dean, in the second sentence the language says that the brackets must be the ones that the seat was homologated with. Sorry, can't cut and paste the text from where I currently am writing. In my search last night I found something saying that FIA certification for a recaro seat was valid only when seat is mounted using the recaro side mounts. I think this is the intent of the rule proposal, and it's pretty clear in th second sentence. Nevermind that you have to chop up the floorboards to accommodate the factory side mounts...
Region: kc
Car #: 20
Year : 92 Posts: 1801
Status: Offline
posted
Of the many FIA seats that do not use a back brace -- Many are mounted in a way that is not solid. You can grab a seat and move it from side to side and back and forth. An attempt was made to require back braces, even though the FIA seats were designed to be used without them. Everyone threw a fit about modifying their FIA seats. Fair enough. So, why are some of these seats marginal. Many are not mounted the way FIA mounted them when they certified them. They have stock sliders, or other mounting systems, that were never imagined during the FIA certification process. Now the rule says you don't have to put in a back brace, but you have to mount the FIA seat the way the manufacturer intended. Non FIA seats are not affected by this rule change. wheel
Region: SFR / NorCal
Car #: 72
Year : 93 Posts: 1276
Status: Offline
posted
Wheel,
My issue is not with the intent of tightening the rules to ensure that seats are mounted safely. My issue is with the wording of the proposed rule. It is confusing and unnecessarily complex, and I guarantee it will be interpreted differently by different tech stewards. That alone makes it a bad rule...
Again - a few simple points:
- Manufacturers sell multiple models of mounts that will fit a given seat, yet do not publish the exact mount that was used for homologation. How will competitors get this information and how will tech stewards verify it?
- All of the mounts I've personally ordered directly from seat manufacturers (a couple Sparco, a couple Recaro) have had no identifying markings other than a big RECARO decal on the side. How does a tech steward verify that the L-shaped piece of steel with 6 holes in it and a Recaro decal is the RIGHT mount?
- That sentence about the "series produced car" is just ridiculous. What does it mean? I can just imagine the arguments that tech stewards will have to endure...
Just trying to avoid a rule being passed that results in confusion and frustration. Not trying to make things less safe.
Dean
-------------------- NASA Nor Cal SM series Director www.molaps.com
Winner - Ford Racing Mustang Challenge Driver Shootout
Evil Genius Racing / Race Engineering / Stewart Development
Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991 Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
posted
The CRB is seriously confused.
The FIA regulations do not specify the seat mount nor does a seat homologated to the FIA specification have a specific mount. It has a 'mounting type': bottom, lateral (and back, in S2000-certified seats).
FIA Standard 8855-1999 Sec 1.2 states:
quote: Each seat shall be homologated with its type of supports: lateral supports, lower supports. The tests described below shall be carried out with the type of supports defined by the manufacturer at the time of the homologation
The statement regarding adjustable seats is Section 16 (3): "If rails for adjusting the seat are used, they must be those originally supplied with the homologated car or with the seat."
What a mess!
There are two issues: 1. The strength of the seat. As long as the seat maker's attachment points are used (which are threaded inserts in the composite), the seat is not an issue. It is compliant until it fatigues and expires. 2. The strength of the mounting to the car. This is the issue. The tin can floorboards of most street cars cannot handle the forces the seat will exert on them. The strength of some adjustable rails may be questionable. No one certifies these. The mounting brackets for seats are questionable. No one certifies these.
-------------------- Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?
Region: NWR / Oregon
Car #: 88
Year : 95 Posts: 2000
Status: Offline
posted
I do agree with both points.
What if we're reading into the intent wrong though? (My cynical side showing through here...)
A rule was proposed to require a back brace on all seats because seat mounts can be sketchy and are unverifiable. That proposal was shouted down. What if the response is, "OK, you can mount it without a back brace if you prove it's mounted the exact same way it was tested. Oh that's impossible to verify too? Then put on a back brace!
-------------------- Keith Novak (Will work for tires)
Region: NWR/Oregon; ICSCC
Car #: 70
Year : 1991 Posts: 1111
Status: Offline
posted
I'm only a lawyer, so understanding SCCA-prose is far beyond my ability.
I have an Ultra-Shield aluminum racing seat, with a brace going from the cage behind the seat onto the back of the seat. AFAIK, this is not an FIA-approved seat. I am hoping, obviously, that I don't have to change anything for this new rule/proposal, but I'm wondering if anyone knows for sure, and, if so, if that person could explain it to me.
Region: SFR / NorCal
Car #: 72
Year : 93 Posts: 1276
Status: Offline
posted
Here's the letter I wrote to the CRB regarding their revised seat mounting proposal. I know they don't like cut and paste form letters, but I hope it might motivate some additional people to write their own letters if any of what I wrote makes sense.
Title: Proposed seat mounting rules are unclear Category: AS Class: AS Car: none Request: To the CRB: I am writing in response to the newly proposed rule in the August Fastrack regarding FIA seat mounting.I have questions/issues for your consideration for the two somewhat distinct assertions in the proposed rule.
First: “Seat supports shall be of the type listed on FIA technical list No. 12 or No. 40 (lateral, lower, floor, back, etc).In accordance with the FIA standards, the seat supports (brackets) must be those used when the seat was tested forhomologation." I agree 100% that the same TYPE of mount used for testing (lateral, lower, floor, back, etc.) must be used. This is a very good rule to retain. However, to specify that the brackets "must be those used when the seat was tested for homologation," will lead to some enforcement problems, I'm afraid. First, the *specific* brackets used by the manufacturer for the FIA homologation are NOT recorded as part of the homologation. So, I don't know what a tech steward would use a reference to enforce this rule.
Second, manufacturers do not, in my experience and to the best of my knowledge, stamp manufacturer names or part numbers onto their mounting brackets. So, even if the specific bracket was recorded in the homologation records, I do not know how a tech steward would verify that the brackets installed on a given car are indeed those used in the test. For example, if I put RECARO stickers on some Sparco brackets, would ANY tech steward be able to verify who manufactured them?
Third, seat manufacturers often sell several different seat mounting brackets for the same seat (e.g. Recaro offers both steel and alloy side mounts) yet no where does it state that the seat was homologated with both brackets. So, my proposal is that you either keep the rule as it is currently written (just specifying the type of support) and either a) state that the mount must be from the SEAT MANUFACTURER and put the burden of proof on the competitor or b) specify some minimum thickness of steel for the brackets. However, I do not believe the new rule as proposed could be practically enforced.
For the second part of the proposed rule: "Unless supporting evidence is provided by the manufacturer of a series produced car that shows FIA safetycage testing for homologation included an adjustable seat mount, seats and their supports must be attached to a fixed mounting structure.”
I'm confused by this proposed rule. Is this a rule about "series produced cars" in particular? And what is a "series produced car." I did not find that defined in the GCR. Does the rule pertain ONLY to cars for which an FIA cage homologation was sought? I'm worried that the INTENT of this rule and how it might be interpreted is that no adjustable seat mounts are permitted unless the SEAT homologation testing was performed with an adjustable seat mount. Is the intent to outlaw sliding seat mounts?
If the intent is just to address an issue with cars which have an FIA cage homologation, then I'd suggest rewording the rule to say, "For series produced cars which have undergone FIA safety cage homologation, fixed seat mounts are required unless... [evidence is provided]" This would make it clear that this rule is not applicable to any other race car other than those with FIA homologated cages.
If the intent is to outlaw sliding seat mounts in all race cars, then I have three issues.
First, the proposed rule is completely inappropriate and confusing as written. It should make no reference to series produced cars or FIA safetycage testing.
Second, sliding seat mounts are nearly a practical necessity for many club racers who share cars.
Third, the competition seat manufacturers design and sell competition sliding mounts for exactly this reason. I called Recaro, and someone from their tech department said he'd have to check with the guys in Germany if they could provide evidence of the sliders being used in homologation testing. He did go on to say that they use their own sliding seat mounts in their Patron GT3 Cup cars and all of their ALMS cars. That's just food for thought.
Another thing to consider - my wife, who is only 5' 2" has to have the seat quite far forward in order to reach the pedals and the steering wheel. With a head containment seat, she would not be able to enter or exit the driver's window quickly (or at all?) unless she could slide her seat back to get the head restraint out of the way.
Thanks for your consideration on these matters. I'm glad to see you all taking safety and seat mounting very seriously. I do ask that you carefully consider the implications of how any additional rules are written and interpreted.
Respectfully, Dean Thomas San Francisco Region
-------------------- NASA Nor Cal SM series Director www.molaps.com
Winner - Ford Racing Mustang Challenge Driver Shootout
Evil Genius Racing / Race Engineering / Stewart Development
Region: SCCA North Carolina, NASA Mid-Atlantic Posts: 37
Status: Offline
posted
Ill back up what Keith said a few posts back. CF, and even fiberglass type composites are very strong(when its designed and manufactured to be) but its also very brittle, just watch and F1 crash......those cars disintegrate. Very small stresses in a direction that the designers didnt consider or viewed as non-critical and it cracks. So even things like putting too much weight on a certain section of the seat when ingressing/egressing can cause cracks. At the same time, the resin does break down over time which can be accelerated by fluids and exposure to things like sunlight. And over time, simply driving at speed around the courses, going over bumps and such will cause the "microfractures". And thats just everyday stuff, that doesnt include car or wall encounters.
Region: SFR / NorCal
Car #: 72
Year : 93 Posts: 1276
Status: Offline
posted
Looks like we got a sensible adjustment to the seat brace rule in the December Fastrak:
9.3.41. SEATS The driver’s seat shall be a one-piece bucket-type seat and shall be securely mounted. The back of the seat shall be firmly attached to the main roll hoop, or its cross bracing, so as to provide aft and lateral support. Seats homologated to and mounted in accordance with FIA standard 8855-1999 or.FIA.Standard.8862-2009 or higher need not have the seat back attached to the roll structure. Seats with a back not attached to the main roll hoop or its cross bracing may not be mounted to the stock runners unless they are the FIA homologated seats specified in an FIA homologated race car. The homologation labels must be visible. Seat supports shall be of the type listed on FIA technical list No.12 or No. 40 (lateral, bottom, etc). Passenger seat back – if a folding seat, it shall be securely bolted or strapped in place.
It looks like the only change is to say that you cannot mount a seat to STOCK sliders unless the entire car and seats are homologated that way by the FIA.
Whew!
-------------------- NASA Nor Cal SM series Director www.molaps.com
Winner - Ford Racing Mustang Challenge Driver Shootout
Evil Genius Racing / Race Engineering / Stewart Development
Region: Oregon
Car #: 68
Year : 91 Posts: 2359
Status: Offline
posted
quote:Originally posted by Brandon F.: This clarification happened to include how an existing passenger seat needed to be secured.
I don't think it was ever "illegal".
The rule always said "may remove" I thought...
"The passenger seat must be removed." at least in SCCA.
-bw
-------------------- Bruce Wilson 2010 Oregon Region Champ 2010 Monte Shelton Driver of the Year 2010 25 Hours of Thunderhill E3 and Under 2 liter Overall Champion Oregon Region SM Class Advisor
Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
![[censored]](graemlins/censored.gif)
back brace!![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic