Quote:
Originally Posted by zdr93523
I am not sure which "NASA officials" reviewed this and I'm not trying to instigate an argument, I just want to help make thing better... so I shared the pictures of your design with our NASA director who also builds a lot, A LOT, of cages and your design is in no way, shape, or form in compliance with the harness bar / diagonal bar intersection rules. In fact, your design is similar to the non-legal roll bar designs and not the legal SCCA and NASA roll cage designs. "Must intersect" is mentioned in the CCR twice for good reason and that is not a wording that is up for interpretation.
If a car with this cage comes to Utah, it will not pass tech. My advice is that this needs to be fixed before your design is finalized vs. rolling the dice with which "official" happens to look at it.
|
Your concerns are justified, and are why we're leaning on the officials we talked to about getting some more rigid documentation for our car. They recommended printing off the emails and keeping them in the logbook, but I want something more official. If you'd like, I can PM you the names of the officials we talked to about our car. If it makes a difference, more officials than just our region approved our design.
But I do agree with you that it means more hassle getting cars through tech, and we will most likely not be doing this design in any production cages. It'll be good enough for this prototype cage, but we certainly don't want to create problems for customers down the road. We can definitely do it differently to meet the letter of the rules, even if we feel our design is suitably safe/strong. No sense borrowing trouble.
Jake