SCCAForums.com

The new Fastrack has a proposed rule:

Change 17.2.I to read as follows (new language in italics): “The driver seat may be replaced with a seat of any origin. All passenger seats may be removed or replaced with seats of any origin. Driver’s seat must remain on the stock side of the car and may not cross the centerline of the car. The seat may be relocated fore/aft by up to 12” based on the centerline of the original front and rear mounting points. Rear bulkhead of the driver/passenger compartment may not be removed to relocate seat and driver’s seat may not extend rearward past the bulkhead.

I've asked for clarification that I could place the driver on the right side of an early Miata and convert the steering and controls to right-hand-drive. I got the clarification that the controls (clutch and throttle) could be modified, but the driver's postion has been restricted.

The reason I asked for this clarification was to be able to route a set of long-tube headers through the left side firewall above the floorpan instead of through the tunnel where they would normally go. The conversion to RHD makes this MUCH easier to accomplish and in the Miata's case, the RHD conversion is fairly easy and legal except for this proposed driver's position rule.

I understood that this proposed rule was to keep the "barrier to entry" to DP low. My alternate header that works around the LHD steering column and bodywork would be a much larger barrier to entry than sourcing a few OEM parts.

Any comments? Anyone feel strongly about it? Strong enough to write a letter?

Edit: Glad to see the  MX-5 classed in DP. The cheapest one I've found so far is $8500.

modernbeat:

I understood that this proposed rule was to keep the "barrier to entry" to DP low. My alternate header that works around the LHD steering column and bodywork would be a much larger barrier to entry than sourcing a few OEM parts.

I'm not allowed to reveal PAC deliberations, but I can assure that "barrier to entry" for DP was not a factor.  The proposed seat rule has more to do with the allowances that are in the "spirit of Prepared".

And write your letters to the SEB and comment on the proposal.  And all the other proposals in the March Fastrack. 

stevemhudson:

I'm not allowed to reveal PAC deliberations, but I can assure that "barrier to entry" for DP was not a factor.  The proposed seat rule has more to do with the allowances that are in the "spirit of Prepared".

And write your letters to the SEB and comment on the proposal.  And all the other proposals in the March Fastrack. 

Steve, can you sum up the "Spirit of Prepared" for me and others? Personally, I think some of the lower level P classes like DP should be easy to build for, and others like XP should have LOTS of allowances and be expected to take advantage of them. And thanks for your reply.

 Howdy,

modernbeat:

Change 17.2.I to read as follows (new language in italics): “The driver seat may be replaced with a seat of any origin. All passenger seats may be removed or replaced with seats of any origin. Driver’s seat must remain on the stock side of the car and may not cross the centerline of the car. The seat may be relocated fore/aft by up to 12” based on the centerline of the original front and rear mounting points. Rear bulkhead of the driver/passenger compartment may not be removed to relocate seat and driver’s seat may not extend rearward past the bulkhead.

I'm fine with the seat being required to stay on the side of the car it came on.  I seriously doubt a RHD miata is easier to pull off than a custom header, particularly for the garage builder.

But that's not really why I'm posting... Mostly I'm posting because the front / rear restriction seems pretty much totally insane.

Certainly you can locate where the seat was with the car in stock form using the proposed rule, but I don't see how the hell you're going to locate the centerline of the alternate seat, which (in every case I've ever seen) doesn't use factory mounting points and even if they did, they certainly won't locate them all in the same way.  I'd hate to be the guy on the PC or the car builder trying to figure out what the heck that meant...

Just delete the 12" part of the rule and keep the "can't screw with the rear bulkhead" part.  There's never been a big hue and cry that people were moving their seats too far fore and aft (or side to side, for that matter) that I'm aware of.  Of course, even for that you'll probably need to define what the rear bulkhead is.... Is it the step up in the stock sheet metal that usually supports a rear seat?  The sheet metal that usually supports the back of the rear seat?  Something else?

This is a rule looking for a problem to solve.

Mark

marka:

 Howdy,

modernbeat:

Change 17.2.I to read as follows (new language in italics): “The driver seat may be replaced with a seat of any origin. All passenger seats may be removed or replaced with seats of any origin. Driver’s seat must remain on the stock side of the car and may not cross the centerline of the car. The seat may be relocated fore/aft by up to 12” based on the centerline of the original front and rear mounting points. Rear bulkhead of the driver/passenger compartment may not be removed to relocate seat and driver’s seat may not extend rearward past the bulkhead.

I'm fine with the seat being required to stay on the side of the car it came on.  I seriously doubt a RHD miata is easier to pull off than a custom header, particularly for the garage builder.

But that's not really why I'm posting... Mostly I'm posting because the front / rear restriction seems pretty much totally insane.

snip

 

This is a rule looking for a problem to solve.

Mark

so what else is new in the land of rules?