Quote:
Originally Posted by CCr 2006.5
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCr 2008.12
What changed? I don't see where this says we need to use that hard padding now.Quote:
Originally Posted by CCR 2011.3
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCr 2006.5
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCr 2008.12
What changed? I don't see where this says we need to use that hard padding now.Quote:
Originally Posted by CCR 2011.3
It never did. I've always had the cheap stuff in my car.
SFI 45.1 is optional...so you can use any high density foam....I prefer to use SFI rated ...I tested burn on three types if cheaper padding ranging from $4-$17 and none of it made me comfortable.
The $5 stuff I tried probably would not be considered high density anyway...but the $12 and $17 stuff was.
That's what I thought.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm pretty sure Al said that I needed to replace mine with the hard stuff when he was doing the annual tech due to a change in the CCR.
I have the hard stuff around my head, and the regular stuff on my door bars. I knew I would have to replace the door bar padding due to the worn out condition of the foam. Maybe he was just saying to replace it with new padding.
I'll check my logbook and wait for Al to chime in.
That hard stuff is so hard that you could probably still break bones on it. I'm thinking of covering mine with something softer to make a better cushion than it is....
...like maybe steel...
Good research on the padding rules Gary. It does not seem that the rule has changed, only the interpretation or enforcement.
Looking on the Jeg's website, there is a huge gap in pricing.
http://www.jegs.com/c/Safety_Roll-Ba...10505/10002/-1
There is low-density offset center at about $4 per stick, high density from about $9 to $12 per stick (!!!), and high density SFI rated at from $25 to $30 (!!!!!!!!!!!) per stick. This is across multiple brands.
We need a clarification from management as to what has changed or hasn't changed. This has the potential for a huge investment for a whole vehicle upgrade.
Stay tuned.
I think part of the confusion comes with the definition of high density padding.
Looking at this...
http://www.jegs.com/p/Moroso/Moroso-...37112/10002/-1
It lists the softer of the padding types as high density. Even the chearp $4 one Rob pointed out is labeled as high density (not low density like Rob said). A more clear definition should be high-density and higher-density.
Spec 45.1 came out Aug 11, 2005. I'd be curious to see what teh 2005 CCR stated. My bet is it called for High Density as well.
Gary is on the ball today. I assumed, as maybe others did as well, that the inexpensive padding is low density when in fact it is not.
If it was put to me as a racer, I would purchase the low dollar Jeg's offset high density padding. If anyone challenges it, I would show the webpage below and ask for an explanation of why this high density pad does not meet the rule.
http://www.jegs.com/i/JEGS+Performan...70001/10002/-1
From the webpage - "Special closed cell foam does not absorb moisture, but does progressively absorb shock. This flame retardant, high density padding features a offset hole that provides added protection and comfort for the driver. 36-inch lengths with 1-5/8" I.D., Will fit 1" (with some trimming) to 1-3/4" tube. Not SFI approved. Made in USA."
Excellent research Gary. I will get clarification.
Regarding "hard" padding, in a crash, the hard stuff will do MUCH better than soft stuff. The reference to Ensolite is VERY accurate, as it follows what the FAA mandates for delethalizing hard structures in the "head strike" zone during a 16G crash analysis...
Anyhoo, just my .02
Totally agree that the hard padding is better. I could even see a change requiring that stuff for the bars that could be struck by the helmet (probably one or two 3' sections at most). But requiring it all the way down to the foot protection bar can get expensive.
Official word from NASA National:
Roll bar padding does NOT need to be the super high density stuff such as is common to SFI rated padding. It is recommended to use that style padding, but not required.
My apologies for causing the confusion, I should've double checked.
Thanks Todd, but I already cut my splitter.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Fernandez
In Todd's defense... nevermind, there is no defense for Todd on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennCMC70
On the other hand, who starts hacking up their car without first confirming what rule they are in violation of and determining exactly what would be required to bring their car in compliance???
Richard P.
You are correct.
Man...I hate it when this happens...
I have been corrected on my correction...
Roll bar padding does not need to be SFI. However, it does need to be the true high density style like SFI approved pads are. Stuff marketed as "high density" which is actually closer to a pool float is not ok.
Sorry for the confusion. The words in the CCR have not changed recently, rather what has changed is what is allowed as "high density".
so this part no longer applies? "such as Ethafoam or Ensolite"
Pool noodles = ensolite
http://store.poolcenter.com/texas-re...38303232303034
*edit* Ensolite is also the stuff you see used in those blue roll out padding for camping.
What are we to do that have the "non high-density" pads?
I'm not doing anything until the CCR changes to not allow ensolite or ethafoam like padding.
*edit*Ethafoam, popular for using in packaging.
http://www.casesbymasco.com/Ethafoam
http://www.qualityfoam.com/ethafoam-faq.asp
*edit edit* Both ensolite and ethafoam are resilient. The higher density stuff that Al is talking about is nonresilient.
There is some confusion over "Ensolite" and "Ethafoam" type padding.
Ensolite comes in MANY different grades and densities. For delethalization of structure in the head-strike zone for commerical aircraft interiors, Type AG or AH are the only approved types of Ensolite when used in 1" thickness. I "think" this type of Ensolite was what NASA (and probably SCCA) had in mind when they referenced that brand name in the rules. However, not specifically telling racers what type/grade of Ensolte leads us down the road for ensolite pool noodles to be used as roll bar padding.
Ethafoam is a trade name for a hydrocarbon blown polyethylene foam. The name and chemical formulation was orignally owned by Dow Chemical, but was recently (last 3-4 years) sold to Sealed Air Corp. Ethafoam comes in several different densities and really does not have very good high speed damping properties like Ensolite.
So, I'd either go with the "cheap stuff" that Summitt/Jegs sells, or go with the SFI stuff. Regardless of which one you use, leave the pool noodles for the kids... You need a bit more to protect your own noodle, IMHO.
Good to know Marshall. No doubt that the rues should require padding that was manufactured specifically to be used as roll bar padding (not literally the pool noodles or home pipe padding). Upon more googling, that explains why some sites list ensolite as resilient and some as non, tho the majority of the places that list it as non resilient are sites that are repeating a rule spec.
Al, if they are looking to change the rules, can we lobby to only require the higher density stuff around the bars that could come in contact with your head?
*edit* Here's the SCCA wording...
*edit edit* Found this on a FSAE website. Same situation where the rules said non resilient, but then ok'd ethafoam and ensolite.Quote:
I. ROLL BAR PADDING
Braces and portions of the main hoop subject to contact by the driver’s
or passenger’s helmet, as seated normally and restrained by seat belt
and harness, must be padded with a non-resilient material such as
Ethafoam (R) or Ensolite (R) or other similar material with a minimum
thickness of one-half inch.
http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1.../m/61810772821
Quote:
I actually contacted the FSAE judges about this rule becuase I wondered why they specifically listed materials to be non-resilient when the manufacture lists them as resilient. The response:
"We seem to be getting hung up on semantics, "resilient", "semi-resilient", "non-resilient", etc. We inserted the phrase "non-resilient" into the FSAE rules a couple of years ago to convey to the teams that we did not want to see rubbery roll bar and head restraint padding such as pipe insulation.
Yes, Dow does classify their Ethafoam as "resilient". However, over the years we have found from experience that it does a very good job as roll bar padding or for head restraints in our forms of motorsport, e.g. Formula SAE, SCCA Club Racing, Solo II and Pro Rallying.
Confor foam CF45 (Blue) is approved by the FIA for use as cockpit and headrest padding for F1 cars above 30 deg C and for sports cars. Below 30 deg. C, F1 cars have to switch to Confor CF42 (Pink). These cars can run at a little higher speeds than we allow Formula SAE cars to reach, and therefore need to meet some tougher standards. Confor is an excellent material that works in these applications.
As far as the "weekend autocrosser" is concerned, our Formula SAE rules are more stringent for car safety than those for SCCA Solo II. So you should have no concern that a car complying with our rules will not meet the Solo II or local autocross rules. You do not need to use "FIA Approved materials". You may if you wish, but it is not necessary.
We hope this answers your question. If not, please contact us again.
Rules Committee,
FSAE"
Gary, I would love to see the CCR reworded, but I cannot guarantee that it will happen. I've been educated, re-educated, and re-re-educated on what the interpretation of that rule is and entrusted to ensure Texas Officials follow the same.
Cars that do not have the right padding this weekend will be allowed to run and informed that they have to fix it by the next weekend they attend.
"Should" indicates a suggestionQuote:
15.6.4 Padding
All roll cage surfaces that may come in contact with the driver should be padded with high-density padding such as Ethafoam or Ensolite. It is recommended that padding meeting SFI specificaiton 45.1 be used.
"Shall" indicates a requirements
Based on that, we don't need roll bar padding at all, to the letter of the rule.
"Such as"
-adverb
1. to the same degree, amount, or extent; similarity; equally
So, if we choose to pad the roll cage, it needs to be equivalent to Ethafoam and Ensolite. Both of which have numerous grades, densities, and impact properties.
What needs to happen is somthing like this:
Quote:
15.6.4 Padding
All roll cage surfaces that may come in contact with the driver shall be padded with high-density padding. It is recommended that padding meeting SFI specification 45.1 be used. The following non-SFI padding has been reviewed and approved for use under this section and must be selected if non-SFI 45.1 padding is utilized.
PN: 1234 Mfr: XYZ Company
PN: 5678 Mfr: ABC Company
PN: 9012 Mfr: Acme Roll Bar Padding
What is the official direction, without doubt. I have the "pool noodle" type that was "high density" when I bought it. I was told that I was racing "at risk" at MSR-C. I would like to know if I'm going to be "turned away" at TWS for non-compliance, but as I see it today, we technically don't need padding per the written rule...
Someone PLEASE draw the line in the sand for everyone and get the CCR's updated, if it's as big of a deal as it "should" be.
There you go again, thinking the rest of the world and like normal folks think.
However, this is the CCR ...
So should equals shall and shall is the same as should in the context of the CCR.Quote:
28.1.13 Should vs. Shall
The word “should” is used throughout this rulebook; and in order to fully grasp its
meaning, the following explanations have been created. When the word “should”
is used, it can be taken to mean that something should be done in accordance
with this book, or the driver can expect the stewards to disallow track time, if they
catch the issue. The reason that it’s stated as “should,” is to add emphasis that
it’s really, and ultimately, the driver’s responsibility. Because Inspectors,
Instructors, Flaggers, and Officials in general, tend to be human, it is an assumed
risk of this activity that a mistake can be made. Therefore, the driver is ultimately
held responsible for his or her own safety.
Furthermore, the word “should” also makes an implication of fallibility and/or
corrects false expectations. For example, “the flagger should display a yellow
flag,” the yellow flag in question may not show because of 1) it relies on the
flagger’s judgment, and that can be subjective, and 2) the flagger is human and
can make a mistake. Therefore, if one is not willing to risk their safety because
they expect other people to be perfect, then they cannot participate in NASA.
To sum it up, the word “should” can be construed in the context of these
examples:
a) “The driver should have roll cage padding (if they expect to be let on
track).”
b) “The official should check for roll cage padding (implying that, even though
they do their best, the Inspectors can miss something).
In other words, they use two different words with different meanings and sentence useage to mean the same thing.
I guess their version of a word processor doesn't have the "Find and Replace" feature.
Well crap... There you go showing that I didn't fully read the CCR's... They even reference roll cage padding in their reference...
If YOU guys think this crap is confusing imagine what its like when you are building your first car! :shock:
Sure wish they would clean some of the wording up so I wouldnt be as scared of buying something and then being told it wont work. On the roll bar padding I just bit the bullet and bought all 45.1 to install as soon as the car gets back from the cage builder, but I still keep thinking something I misinterpretted is going to bite me in the ass my first time through tech. :(
Hindsight is always 20/20 and everyone becomes an expert on the part of the rules that they didn't know they were breaking...AFTER the fact. Ask me about helmets, firewalls, intakes, head & neck restraints, wire terminals and now SOCKS and I can tell you all about them, and yes some of the rules are written poorly.
For example:
15.17.7 Socks.
Socks made of approved fire resistant material must be worn.
I admit, cotton: no, nomex: yes. But what exactly is "approved" and what isn't? There are a lot more types of fire resistant materials than nomex but NASA gives no reference to what is or is not approved. A clear, concise list would be nice...and could save us $50 in the future.
...but I digest... :lol:
If you're not sure about making a change to your car, look at the CCR first (unlike some of us). The "find" box for PDF is invaluable for searching. Also, don't be afraid to ask. One person might find something that 5 others missed.