Doors/Sheet Metal Chopdown Rule Updates? (Page 2 of 5)

New rules for 2011 will include provision for additional mandatory safety equipment - this can be bought here

The rules will be out soon, I just recommend that you keep your doors and don't hack on your car until you see them...   Simple, no?

If I have to take a wild guess it's the crx that got mangled by an mr2 at autobahn.

+1

I don't have all the facts of that incident, so im not challenging anyone on this, Im just not clear on the reasons for the new rule or the implications.  Perhaps its the fabrication of after market bumpers that should be banned.  New cars have impact absorbing dampers but I guess big ol Lincolns and Pontiacs have iron girders in there to ram their way trhough traffic?

I'm totaly behind the leaders of this fantastic event in making it safe, but, as newbies with a couple of races under our belt and so many ideas inspired by the good folks of Lemons....we feel a bit in limbo as to what may change that will stop us racing in February......and it just doesn't feel right to say....best thing is to do nothing, leave your car as it is, don't change it, don't make it stick out or look stupid.....I just don't imagine Jayy Lamm standing in front of us all with his loud hailer.....telling us to keep it normal.....not after being inspired by his reasons for starting Lemons in the first place.....it wasn't to have yet another, normal race!

Its motorsport...............

a lot of people really take it to the MR2 (TARP/Condition Orange) guys but the whole intent with their bumper work appears to me like an attempt to mitigate a potentially worse problem, such as the fact they race on the same track as crown vics. imagine if their full stock nose was on there and the CRX was Randy Pobst's cheater vic. it would have weged itself up underneath that car in a heartbeat and the driver would have a face full of bumper. While the whole Autobahn occurrence was a one-off in my mind, it does illustrate the need to continually improve the safety of everyone involved. Jay really HATES adding rules to the list, as he admits; but the whole point is that everyone meets on a level playing field.

all that being said, my biggest concern with the possibility of these rule updates is that it may render 60-70% of the currently racing Lemons cars as non-compliant, and flush the toilet we all love to circle. This also may stagnate innovation like the bass ackwards F150/Crown Vic as mentioned previously. This could definitely be a huge game-changer, and perhaps even prevent zany monstrosities we all love (the Bradley GT and the Tyrell-Corvette mashup Speedy just picked up comes to mind) from ever seeing the track!

John; The snow just started falling and my garage has no insulation so I'm more reluctant to get hacking on the buick. keep us in the loop, thanks!

I think they'll be able to write it so that most of the cars racing now will still be eligible.  I expect an "original shadow" rule, by which you can't take significant amounts of structure out of the car.  Cut off the roof - fine.  Remove the trunklid - fine.  Just don't chop three feet off the back of your crown vic.

As far as the complaint about cars that have sustained damage - if the car has been hit hard enough that the crumple zone has crumpled, you won't be driving it on a track anyway (at least not for long).  That kind of impact will cause enough carnage with the suspension mounting points that the car won't really be very driveable.

FWIW, my car is one that will be banned by this rule change, and I'm not too broken up about it.  I had no problem taking the sawzall to it and putting parts up on CL.  This is Lemons.  These cars are disposable, remember?

The car your proposing has not had any pieces cut off of it and therefore has nothing to do with this rule.  Debating whether cars that have not been chopped are safe doesn't have anything to do with that fact that cars that have been chopped probably aren't.  You can do any number of things to a car to make it unsafe, this rule only deals with one of them.

I'm not sure what all the ranting in this thread is about.  This isn't a difficult thing.  No chopped-down cars.  Think of it like the "180+ treadwear only" rule.  Who cares why its a rule?  Its a rule.  Follow it.  Not cutting your car to pieces isn't that difficult. 

Everyone seems to be focusing on the crumple zones, but I think the bigger piece of this is how exposed you are when you start removing body parts (especially doors).  I'll post it again:

This isn't safe.  I drove it anyway because I'm a frakking idiot.  The first time I autocrossed this car, I strapped in, set my drink on the ground, and put my helmet on.  We added the driver's door back on after that.  Either way, I have a feeling this is the type of thing this rule is meant to prevent.  Its purpose will not be to make sure you have adequately engineered crumple zones.

I care why it's a rule, a lot of others probably care too. Not cutting your car to pieces is easy if you're talking about a future event...but what if it's already happened and your car that you have put hundreds of hours into is one of those that don't meet the new requirements. Wouldn't you want to know a little more about why that's the case to make it a little easier on your soul as you contemplate starting the whole process all over again?

Yes, Lemons cars are disposable, but it's one thing to have your car die on track as is its destiny, it's another thing when some rule change means your race chariot is now no more than a pile of scrap, dribbling oil on your garage floor.

A car that has been chopped probably wont be as safe as it was pre-chop, but it could still be on the track with un-chopped cars that despite being whole are nonetheless not as safe as the chopped car. You don't see that as an imbalance at all? You don't think that we should be looking at cars, not in terms of has it been chopped, but in terms of 'as it is, is it safe to race'?

I think though, that this one has some importance and people are taking advantage of the relatively open forum here to ponder, postulate, and provide input on the issue. We all know by now that making an uninformed or even misinformed decision can cause a lot of crap to go down (the curse rule changes, for example were resultant from a misinformed and under-attended vote. Maybe it was bound to happen, but that's one Lemons "tradition" that's been all but erased. When was the last successful vote? cmp spring?

This upcoming rule change may have similar repercussions, albeit one that may not easily be seen in foresight. I for one, heralded the superlight Vic, although i did feel a bit uncomfortable tailing it the few times i did. Dave's certainly glad it's over, but it's that wild oddity that lends itself to the spectacle of Lemons!

I am very happy so far that we've had a very mature discussion from both sides of the fence on this issue. It shows what a great community has been built around this race series, and it illustrates everyone's concerns to balance safety with fanfare.

What would be the good in a debate after the fact? Now is the time for debate when there is a chance that concerns and ideas, if they have merit, might actually influence the wording for the good, surely?