2005 NHRA Rulebook does refer to the rear bracing. I have no clue about the IHRA book.

 

Thanks Ron, As I had said and qouted IHRA is different.
I was only speaking of IHRA rules, I had said I dont claim to know NHRA rules.
Sal had said IHRA and NHRA were the same and I was wrong..not true!
I am willing to admit Sal is right about rear bracesbeing required in NHRA except that they dont specify any angle, but I am right about IHRA...we both can be right!


BTW, does it say anything in there about a 30 degree angle?
Sal was totally off the wall on that one!

 

Your still alright in my book Jamie... . It is funny to see everyone get so worked up over stuff. Whip is right about one thing....once folks start meeting each other at the track, the faceless internet bull***** seems to stop. I know I have met some of the fellows posting on this thread at the track, they all are really nice guys...even Sal ...

Keep it friendly fellers.....everyone posting here is actually real live people...LOL.


Rocks

 

The 30 degree issue comes into play with a full cage in full bodied cars. All required rear bracing on a full cage must be a minimum of a 30 degree angle from verticle. They only discuss this on a full cage...No mention of it in the roll bar section that I see.

It may be a good guidline anyway for the best support.

Rocks

 

This whole discussion is nuts. The spirit of the law is at least as important as the letter of the law. And any discussion of rules is informed by common sense.

Even the posted NHRA rules do not actually say that there must be rear bracing -- they discuss rear braces, but never explicitly state that they are required. The rules only speak to being braced to "prevent forward or lateral collapse." Why don't they mention rearward collapse? Because it's a matter of GD common sense that any roll bar must have rear braces -- because the most likely scenario is an impact from the front.

A front brace will not prevent rearward collapse -- it will fold up with the main hoop.

So whether or not the rulebook actually says a rear bar is required is irrelevant. Only someone without a lick of sense would try to argue to a tech that no rear bar is required -- NHRA, IHRA, SCCA, whatever.

Fomocofan, you are wrong. Get over it.

 

Tim you are misinformed!
Common sense has nothing to do with laws and rulebooks!
If it isn't in black and white, it doesn't apply PERIOD!


Rearward collapse is not mentioned because it is not a concern for a roll bar, as per the rules!

Don't add your personal feelings into IHRA/NHRA rules
Neither org requires prevention of rearward movemnt!

Bracing is to prevent forward and lateral movement!

The reason for this is that in the old days rollbars that weren't properly braced would collapse forward onto the driver!

These rules are a minimum standard and of course could be safer, but as they are written rearward collapse is not a concern!

Someone brought up a point early in this post that rear bracing is better structurally to prevent forward collapse.
That may be, but you are the first to say that rear braces are designed to prevent rearward movement!!

Furthermore, if you think rear braces would be obvious to prevent rearward collapse, then that means that forward braces would prevent forward collapse...thus proving my point that forward braces would meet the rules that say bracing must be adequate to prevent forward movement!!

Tim, which way is it???

I was willing to accept the concept that rear braces are better for prevention of forward movement, but you are way off the mark here, pal!

BTW, I have seen many SCCA cars with forward braced bars and no rear bars!

 

Yeah, what would I know about intepreting laws or rulebooks. My "misinformation" about the "black and white" nature of laws and rulebooks began in law school and has continued through six years of practice in the busiest courts in the nation.

I just don't know where to start in reforming my errant thinking. What really puzzles me, though, is how am I going to get this important news to the United States Supreme Court? They really need to hear this soon.

 

I certainly would want you defending me!

You didn't answer my question Tim...

 

Put down the crack pipe. The roll bar must not move in any plane. Forward bars prevent forward movement, rearward bars prevent rearward movement. There is some spillover effect for each. There is no controversy here, so don't try to create any. You already look like an idiot for picking a fight over every little point made in this thread.

The rules only emphasize forward and lateral movement because any jackass knows that rearward movement must be prevented. Which pretty much leaves you with sub-jackass reasoning.

 

That exact statement is exactly why YOU are wrong.

Common sense has EVERYTHING to do with it!

The "common sense" of the tech inspector overrides anything written in the rulebook. If the tech inspector holding your card feels a design on your vehicle is unsafe, YOU AREN'T PASSING TECH. It doesn't matter what the rule book says. Common sense IS law.

But what do we all know. What does Tim know? He's obviously spent some time at several kinds of racing tracks, and he sure knows how to read rules and laws. What do I know? I've only been doing chassis and roll cages for many years, as well as racing at both NHRA and IHRA tracks for even longer. What do the chassis builders know? They only build these setups for a living. Hell, what does IHRA know?! Their rulebook doesn't say you CAN'T not use rear bars and run them forward instead, so that means you CAN do it, right?

 

Well Tim, sounds like this guy knows more about it than you!

He seems to think rear braces would prevent forward movement better!

Tim, You are not even smart enough to realize you are proving my point for me!!

YOU say it is obvious that front braces would prevent forward movement.....Well pal, that is all that is required by the IHRA and the NHRA....so I guess according to you I WAS right that front braces would "adequately support the bar"!!

I rest my case....

 

To go along with what Sal has said about common sense.....out of hundreds of 10 second or even 9 second passes has anybody here ever heard of any fast truck being parked because it didn't have a C clip eliminator and aftermarket axles. I didn't think so.....is it because both sanctioning bodies don't know about it or are they looking the other way ?

 

http://store.nhra.com/product.asp?0=230&1=231&3=54


10 bucks + shipping.

 

Show me where it says in the rulebook where "common sense" prevails over the written laws!

You are absurd!

The reason why common sense doesn't have anything to do with the rules is because nobody can ever agree to what "common sense" is!

Tech inspectors cannot make up rules just because they think its common sense, they only are allowed to make judgement calls on the written rules!

If they were to resort to common sense, then why have a rulebook in the first place!

 

Yes, I have seen vehicles "parked" for not meeting the rules or for going faster than their car was tech'd for!!
Generally tracks allow people to make one fast pass and give a verbal warning, but you will be DQ'd for it in eliminations.
Most people are aware of this and use their heads!

And so has Ron, right buddy?

And you will see more parked this year if they don't conform!