NASA won't approve my Safety Devices cage. Whats up w/ that?

[bauer911]

Today, I found out that NASA has an issue with my FIA approved 6-point bolt in competition cage. Interesting. This cage has been demonstrated to be one of the safest out there. Who is NASA to argue with FIA? I guess I'll get some schmuck to fab one in his garage for a couple hundred bucks (vice the $1300 Safety Devices) without any quality control and slap that in my car. Hey as long as it's dimensionally correct, it's got to be better than by Safety Devices right?
I guess the issue has to do with too many bends in the main hoop. Howver, I'm certain the folks at Safety Devices are better engineers than whoever is writing the rules for NASA.

[jluetjen]

What are NASA's rules regarding cages? Do you have a copy of the rule book? Who turned it down? Did you talk with the person about the specific issue(s) that they have -- most tech inspectors will be happy to show exactly why they are rejecting something. If you're not happy with their call, what's the appeals procedure at NASA?

Even the SCCA (large as it is and part of the FIA BTW) does not accept all of the FIA technical specifications. You need to get down to specifics.

[JRMock]

I have a Safety Device cage in a 944.

The diagonal on the main hoop, goes from above the drivers head down, and back to the trailing arm section of the cage, not to the bottom of the main hoop.

NASA's rule book says this diagonal must be in the same plane as the main hoop.

There are several 944Cup cars on the East Coast with these cages. There is a possibility that we will have to add a diagonal in the future, but have not been instructed to do so yet.


I agree with "jluetjen"...get the details from the tech inspectors. There is a good possibility that all you have to do is add this diagonal.

good luck

JM

[KobaltBlau]

He first posted in the Tech forum, and I directed him this way, and also asked what the tech issue was. Here is his response from the other thread:

Originally posted by bauer911
The issue is the number of bends in the main hoop. I guess their rules indicate no more than 4. I haven't looked at the cage recently because it is at www.theracergroup.com, but I suspect it might have a 5th small bend near the roof line so as to create a tight fit to the car.

[bauer911]

The issue is the number of bends in the main hoop...can't be more than 4. The Safety Devices cage for the C2 has a super small bend at the top of the roof-line so as to create a very tight fit to the car....making it 5 bends total.

[emcon5]

Originally posted by bauer911
The issue is the number of bends in the main hoop...can't be more than 4. The Safety Devices cage for the C2 has a super small bend at the top of the roof-line so as to create a very tight fit to the car....making it 5 bends total.

SCCA has the same rule. Seems like your beef should be with Sefety Devices, not NASA.

Tom

[jluetjen]

(It's kind of confusing since you've got this posted on both forums. Since my comments are pretty much race specific, I'll post them here even though I'm responding to a post that you put on the main forum.)

I'm not sure what the specifics are for your car, but I guess I have to question this remark...

The FIA homologated Safety Devices cage, which is the best fitting safest bolt in cage available, does have 5 (NASA illegal) bends in the main hoop to make it fit extremely tight against the inner tub, as far away from the driver as possible, this is what makes it such a safe cage.

It sounds like you didn't start with the rule book -- which is BTW why I always hesitate to buy someone else's race car project. If the cage doesn't meet the rules (which are the same for everyone), then it's junk since it prevents you from racing. You can ***** and moan all that you want (and you'll be in good company), but you won't be any closer to racing. Your options are...

1) Replace the cage with one that fits the rules. Just because it has no more then 4 bends doesn't make it a bad cage, the inch of space between the roof and the cage is the least of your worries if you asked me. With 4 bends you can still have it fit snuggly against the B pillars on both sides. If you absolutely need to have that extra bend across the roof, why not make up a cage with the passenger side straight up to the roof while the driver side is bowed out to stay close to the B-pillar. So your 4 bends would be: waist height on the B-pillar on the driver's side, driver's B-pillar to the roof, center of the roof and roof to the passenger's B-pillar.

2) Look up the appeals procedure in the rule book and appeal the decision. This will most likely take a month or two to work through the process.

3) Look up the homologation procedures in the rule boodk and initiate getting your cage homologated as acceptable.

That's part of racing -- dealing with the officials. You can either make it hard or easy, but you can't avoid it.

[bauer911]

jluetjen,
I've been racing with this cage for years. A lot of other folks use the same cage, it a very popular model for C2s. We all obviously looked at the rule book before installing. Believe me, I did my homework before installing it, at the time it was one of, or the best on the market. Only this year does NASA have an issue.
So the issue is not the cage (because we all know it is safe, and better than most out there), the number of bends, the mounting points, etc. The issue is NASA.

[KobaltBlau]

Nice post, John.

Originally posted by jluetjen
(It's kind of confusing since you've got this posted on both forums. Since my comments are pretty much race specific, I'll post them here even though I'm responding to a post that you put on the main forum.)

This is a little bit my fault because he posted first in the tech forum and I told him it was probably more an issue for this forum.

[jpachard]

Yes, This is sad since the Porsche factory race cars come with 5 bends in the main hoop. According to my FEA studies, the 5th bend has no effect on the strength of the cage. If you get to the appeal stage and would like the data, I would be happy to send it to the sanctioning body.

Cheers, James

[Geo31]

Originally posted by jluetjen
Even the SCCA (large as it is and part of the FIA BTW) ...

The SCCA is in no way, shape, or form part of the FIA.

[jluetjen]

The SCCA is a member of ACCUS (Automobile Competition Committee for the United States), which are the national sporting representatives of the FIA (Federation International de Motorsports) in the US. The other members are NASCAR, IRL, NHRA, Grand-Am, IMSA/ALMS, USAC and CART (as well as the WKA as an associate member). As such there is an officer of the SCCA who voted for or against Max Mosely. This is also why the SCCA is the group who officially sanctions the USGP and the World Rally on the few occasions that it has appeared here.

[Geo31]

Originally posted by jluetjen
The SCCA is a member of ACCUS (Automobile Competition Committee for the United States), which are the national sporting representatives of the FIA (Federation International de Motorsports) in the US. The other members are NASCAR, IRL, NHRA, Grand-Am, IMSA/ALMS, USAC and CART (as well as the WKA as an associate member). As such there is an officer of the SCCA who voted for or against Max Mosely. This is also why the SCCA is the group who officially sanctions the USGP and the World Rally on the few occasions that it has appeared here.

No, a member of the SCCA did not vote for Max. A member of ACCUS did.

Yes, the SCCA is a member of ACCUS. And ACCUS is the ASN in the US. But that does not make the SCCA a part of the FIA.

You may be right about the SCCA sanctioning the USGP, but I highly doubt it. There is absolutely no reason for the SCCA to be involved.

ACCUS is a confederation of sorts. It's purpose is to represent US interests to the FIA - arrangement of dates on the FIA sporting calendar, I believe it also gets involved when Americans obtain FIA licenses as well. Certainly ACCUS presents the USGP to the FIA for inclusion on the FIA F1 World Championship calendar. In reality it's handled between Tony George and Uncle Bernie. The rest is formalities. I don't think you will find the SCCA involved in any way shape or form.

ACCUS is a confederation of sorts. At times this has been a bit of a pain for the FIA since they cannot directly dictate to any one US sanctioning body as all of the championships, Champ Car, IRL, NASCAR, etc., are all national championships and not directly under the purview of the FIA. In other countries it's much easier for the FIA to dictate because a single group is the ASN. I think you will find the SCCA's relationship to the FIA is generally arm's length at best.

[BReyes]

Do you have pics?

[lateapex911]

NASA, and SCCA has this rule for good reason.

Yes, YOUR cage may be fine, but think about another version, but this time built by a yahoo with, (just to be obvious) a 25 degree bend in the middle of the roll bar as the "5th bend". In the event of a side impact, you don't need a Cray supercomputer to see the implications...

As a semi amatuer organization, it is very difficult to write clear and consise rules that apply over hundreds of car models and thousands of permeations of equipmet, and expect each situtation to be judged by a volunteer accurately.

So rules that need to cover so much ground tend to start off as simplistic and as black and white as possible. Reducing judgement decisions by inspectors is the goal to some degree.

If NASA was writing rules for one make of car, then sure, a 3 degree bend could be considered ok, and the tech inspectors would be armed with the equipment to check it. But a large organization needs to streamiline things, and this is one of the ways.

Listen, it sucks, but really, it's not as though you read the rule, it said 5 bends was OK, then they changed the rule after your install, right? Nor did you call for special permisssion and be misled. You may have done research, but step one in building a project of any kind for someone else is to understand what THEY require. If you are racing with NASA, then you are building the car for thier inspection.

That said, (and sorry to be so blunt up there), keep in mind all NASA inspectors are human and not created equal. Maybe another one might not notice if the entire top tube is buried in protective foam that has been, ummm..."artfully" applied, if you know what I mean....

[bauer911]

Lateapex911,
I've been told by the regional chairman that the cage with be fine once I produce a FIA cert, which StableEnergies / Safety Devices are working on for me. This issue will go away soon, I'm sure.
Erich
'91 C2 Turbo, race-ready
2003 MR2 Spyder, 6-spd sequential
2000 Chevy Silverado Ext. Cab 4x4
2001 Suzuki SV650

[lateapex911]

Cool, glad they have a "plan B" so to speak. Too bad it's a hassle, but racing is never simple!