"Charles R. Schultz" <n2pua4@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> I think the issue folks are concerned about is that if you have a car
> quick enough to require an NHRA - legal cage, that cage is illegal in
> some solo classes, because NHRA requires it to be welded in. This is a
> problem for the folks we're trying to attract to the ST and SM classes,
> for instance, who often are drag racers first, then find out about Solo
> II.
That's pretty well the gist of it. There's also the fact that there are
lots of people who do track days with their SP/SM cars, and so really need
rollover protection, and who want the extra safety/security of a weld-in
cage.
This isn't about raising the SoloII minimum construction requirements
(which I agree is completely unjustified) It's about raising the standard
on what the maximum allowable is.
The trick with that though, is that we cannot raise the maximum allowable
to the point where the performance advantage is so great that you pretty
well require anyone who wants to be competitive to install a cage.
And I'm pretty sure that by limiting the number and location of mounting
points to 8 maximum, and by not allowing anything forward of the firewall
(as per the current GCR) that the potential performance advantage is
sufficiantly contained - especially when a cage carries a weight penalty
with it.
This would mean that any car with a GCR IT-SS cage, or an NHRA cage, would
be SoloII legal. And that's a huge win, IMHO.
DG
|