Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 61

Thread: Racing License

  1. #21
    Senior Member raggedrabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,652
    Rep Power
    2147555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario View Post
    I did not know that. Then just upgrade the cage or downgrade. Lol
    Tubes are too thin. Upgrade car? lol
    161 - The Nefarious Rabbit
    86' MR2 - The Dirty Deuce
    91' CB250 - The 'Hawk
    76' CT90 - an heirloom

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,611
    Rep Power
    920004

    Default

    The first photo is what Casc considers "legal" so long as the 2 bars are ex: 1.5" x .120" wall.
    The bottom picture is of my car which should be similar to Dougs. See how there are 4 bars coming from the main hoop, plus two more from the mid bar. Now if these tubes were 1.5" x .095" wall, Casc would say nope not legal like they have with Doug. Anyone think that just the first picture is safer? Lol
    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. #23
    Contributing Member Mario's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    By the Lake
    Posts
    9,588
    Rep Power
    2147584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raggedrabbit View Post
    Tubes are too thin. Upgrade car? lol
    Lol. Im thinking that redoing cages is still cheaper than starting over with a new race car. That's it. Wing said there are other NASCARs so my guess is tube chassis is ok.


    All I care about is my Porsche... and like maybe 3 people. —Unknown

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,611
    Rep Power
    920004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luker View Post
    Yeah, who cares about rules and standards, they just get in the way.
    Sorry Luke, but in this case it is just dumb. Doug should still be able to get the car approved as is if he fights with them enough. There is a clause in the rule book that they will accept a cage that doesn't fit the rules if it's signed off by an engineer. That's an option, but they are lacking entrants yet turning people away for stupid shit like this.

  5. #25
    Contributing Member Mario's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    By the Lake
    Posts
    9,588
    Rep Power
    2147584

    Default

    Politics. It's just politics. You fight to get something in place for a good reason, then how flexible are you going to be later when it no longer serve your purpose?


    All I care about is my Porsche... and like maybe 3 people. —Unknown

  6. #26
    Senior Member figo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    11,326
    Rep Power
    2147606

    Default

    You all have a fair point, so how do we help Doug get NASCAR in the race?

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Nepean, ON
    Posts
    4,311
    Rep Power
    1670826

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by petawawarace View Post
    Sorry Luke, but in this case it is just dumb. Doug should still be able to get the car approved as is if he fights with them enough. There is a clause in the rule book that they will accept a cage that doesn't fit the rules if it's signed off by an engineer. That's an option, but they are lacking entrants yet turning people away for stupid shit like this.
    So where do draw the line? If I add 4 more tubes I can use 0.075 wall thickness now? Come on, a line is drawn that every other NASCAR in the series abides by. We aren't talking about a couple of extra gussets here, we're talking fundamental wall thickness of safety tubes.

    When I built my car I knew it would be close to the 2500 lbs limit so I built it with 1.75" tubes instead of the 1.5" I could have used instead.

    If ACT has lower standards than others so be it. But pleased advised that our series in Platinum also follows SCCA/CASC/Chumpcar rules.
    Current toys:
    1997 BMW 328is race car
    2014 Chevy Silverado
    2012 VW Golf R
    Spent $1300 on new fasteners when building race car

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,611
    Rep Power
    920004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luker View Post
    So where do draw the line? If I add 4 more tubes I can use 0.075 wall thickness now? Come on, a line is drawn that every other NASCAR in the series abides by. We aren't talking about a couple of extra gussets here, we're talking fundamental wall thickness of safety tubes.

    When I built my car I knew it would be close to the 2500 lbs limit so I built it with 1.75" tubes instead of the 1.5" I could have used instead.

    If ACT has lower standards than others so be it. But pleased advised that our series in Platinum also follows SCCA/CASC/Chumpcar rules.
    I'm not saying that the rules are bad Luke. I understand why they are there. But for an instance like this where it is clear what Doug has is stronger than the recommended minimum but is done so in a different way, it should be easy for a competent tech official to ok the car. Doug said he was .020" too thin. There is an allowance in the rule book that states the tubing may be .010" undersized in wall thickness. So technically he is .010" too thin. The additional tubes make up for that in spades.

    If they were turning guys away at the gate because they had so many entries it's one thing, but not making an exception in this case is just shooting yourself in the foot.

  9. #29
    da battery guy dbg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your mirror
    Posts
    8,424
    Rep Power
    2147572

    Default

    All the tubing within the cage meets CASC specs at 0.095" wall thickness. The argument is about the cross supports at the rear, extending beyond the cage. ACT allows them to be 0.083", but there are actually three of them.

  10. #30
    Dramagnet Jethro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    :-\
    Posts
    34,336
    Rep Power
    2147833

    Default

    I wonder if our local scrutineer from Better Motorsports would agree that your NASCAR racer meets spec?

  11. #31
    da battery guy dbg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your mirror
    Posts
    8,424
    Rep Power
    2147572

    Default

    MightyMicra is also a scrutineer... but the original mess involved the CASC-OR head scrutineer; they were doing training that day. So I don't think that will slide under the radar.

  12. #32
    Dramagnet Jethro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    :-\
    Posts
    34,336
    Rep Power
    2147833

    Default

    I bet it would.

  13. #33
    Elite Member wing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Carp
    Posts
    22,895
    Rep Power
    2081868

    Default

    Depends who?
    Driver for hire....

  14. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,611
    Rep Power
    920004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbg View Post
    All the tubing within the cage meets CASC specs at 0.095" wall thickness. The argument is about the cross supports at the rear, extending beyond the cage. ACT allows them to be 0.083", but there are actually three of them.
    Are you talking about the down tubes that run straight down (in line front to rear but on a downward angle) or ones that make an X? If the ones that run straight down are 0.095 you are legal. If it's just the x braces, there is no requirement for them in the Casc rules, therefore if they are undersized it doesn't matter. If they are all .083" but there are 3 of them, then technically they are undersized by .002" as there is a -.010" tolerance. The 3rd tube easily makes up for .002" FFS.

  15. #35
    da battery guy dbg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your mirror
    Posts
    8,424
    Rep Power
    2147572

    Default

    Yeah they're angled.

  16. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,611
    Rep Power
    920004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbg View Post
    Yeah they're angled.
    So the straight down tubes are to spec at .095". I mean the ones that run from the top of the cage down on an angle?

  17. #37
    FTFM I12XLR8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Greely, ON
    Posts
    9,701
    Rep Power
    2147586

    Default

    Might be stupid but can you just cut out the thin ones and be good?

  18. #38
    da battery guy dbg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your mirror
    Posts
    8,424
    Rep Power
    2147572

    Default

    Not worth the bother. I was only thinking of running a couple of CASC races this season.

  19. #39
    I brake for baguettes and taco blankets mightymousetech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    22,766
    Rep Power
    2147716

    Default

    A couple layers of paint will make it seem thicker.
    Christopher "Mighty Mouse" C.

    Quote Originally Posted by GIF-PWR View Post
    I was wrong about this one; enjoy this moment.
    Quote Originally Posted by GIF-PWR View Post
    turns out for the second time in my life, I was wrong.


    But there's a bigger point here. The 1-series is the last car that BMW engineered before the Germans, as a car-making culture, fell out of love with driving.
    R&T April 2013.

  20. #40
    da battery guy dbg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your mirror
    Posts
    8,424
    Rep Power
    2147572

    Default

    LOL several people have already suggested that one...
    Last edited by dbg; May 9th, 2017 at 12:48pm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •