Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cracked Windshield Rule?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • gsxnut
    replied
    The final rule will be posted here, will be published in FastTracks, will be posted on the Facebook page and will be added to SCCA.com as part of the 2017 Rules set.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimR
    replied
    Will the final wording on the windshield crack rule hit an upcoming FasTrack, or be published here?

    Leave a comment:


  • woodrufj
    replied
    Originally posted by gsxnut View Post
    .The rules do not currently define what is deemed acceptable and it is left to the discretion of the Safety Steward to make the decision on what is deemed safe.
    Yes, and this is true for a uncountable amount of items. This is why we have Safety Stewards, to blanket catch all the things that can't/shouldn't be/haven't been to captured in text.

    Jay W


    Leave a comment:


  • zblorenc
    replied
    All I wanna know is, who made a decision that 3 inch crack is safe and 3.5 inch crack isn't? That dude deserves an honorary engineering degree !!!

    Leave a comment:


  • sureshot007
    replied
    I started this thread thinking that there was still time to stop the rule. Turns out I was wrong. However, there is hope! Propose a new revised rule in the 2018 rule proposal thread!

    Leave a comment:


  • Pete
    replied
    I wanted to post these before but I couldn't find the one video. Both are available in 720p HD.

    Find the crack in the windshield (hint: it's on the driver's side)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5seuleYzYo

    Find the crack in the windshield (hint: it's on the top)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtoL_9RSl_E

    Leave a comment:


  • hzl6cm
    replied
    It would be ridiculous to go with a no cracks rule. In my state, Missouri, cars have to pass a safety inspection before being licensed. My Subaru has cracks in the right side of the windshield from a rock hitting it. It passed the inspection easily since it wasn't blocking the driver's vision. The idea that a windshield would provide structural integrity in the event of a rollover makes no sense since the first thing that happens in a rollover is that the windshield cracks! I agree that they should have a statement about that any cracks in the windshield can't impede the driver's vision and let it go at that.

    Leave a comment:


  • gsxnut
    replied
    [QUOTE=Crawlerado;n1198]

    I have to ask and I hope someone answers me candidly; is this meant to keep cars that rollover at Nationals from competing for the rest of the event?

    /QUOTE]

    The intent of the rule is to provide clear guidance on what is acceptable in a damaged windshield. The rules do not currently define what is deemed acceptable and it is left to the discretion of the Safety Steward to make the decision on what is deemed safe. In the event of a roll-over depending on how sever it is the windshield is typically damaged from the weight of the car on the A Pillar and Roof. It would be common for the windshield to be damaged to the point the car would no long be fit for competition.

    Leave a comment:


  • RallyGinger
    replied
    I'm with everyone else on this. It's not going to help anything, and can drive competitors away that bought their rust chariot for under $1000. We are the dirty step-child in the SCCA family, but are important because we draw in a younger crowd due to the cost effectiveness of our grass-roots racing. It's the safest and easiest way for these kids to feel like they could be the next Ken Block or Travis Pastrana.

    -Brian Chabot

    Leave a comment:


  • Crawlerado
    replied
    Unnecessary rule is unnecessary.

    I have to ask and I hope someone answers me candidly; is this meant to keep cars that rollover at Nationals from competing for the rest of the event?

    Modern laminated windscreens pose no threat to anyone inside or outside the vehicle and offer exactly ZERO structural benefit.

    Leave a comment:


  • slowautoxr
    replied
    Unless an automotive windshield engineer documents that a crack of whatever length and configuration compromises the safety of the driver, then all those that say it does or does not affect safety is conjecture. Do we have someone in the club that does this or have we consulted an engineer?

    Let's look at the Solo rulebook for similar guidance. I would expect to find a safety related item to be in the safety section (3.3.3). Nothing to be found there. A search of the entire rulebook and there is no mention of cracked windshields.

    Unless our insurance company requires this as Jim pointed out, why are we barking up this tree? This is not an issue. Please don't make a rule for something that is unnecessary.

    Leave a comment:


  • sureshot007
    replied
    If a rule were absolutely necessary to appease the insurance company, I would be ok with allowing a single crack of any size, but any type of "spider web" or multiple cracks would not be allowed.

    But I'd much rather just leave it up to tech and safety discretion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pete
    replied
    The idea that windshields are "structural" in modern cars is a myth from the 80s, as an excuse for why certain poorly-designed compact cars would break the windshields if you hit a bump hard. Flexible body plus poorly designed windshield frame areas would equal broken glass when it would get compressed.

    Just like the unleaded fuel causing valve recession myth, it's a non-explanation invented to shift for poor design elsewhere.

    What should be of concern is not for roof integrity (it adds none) but internal integrity. A line crack isn't going to cause any issues. A spiderweb style crack turns the glass into a long, thin beanbag, and shouldn't be allowed past tech (or driven on the street).

    Going by what the state says is permissible isn't much useful because states all have differing opinions. In Michigan you may drive without a windshield but you still have to have wiper blades. In Ohio, you don't need a windshield or wiper blades

    55mph without a windshield is not a very pleasant experience, either.
    Last edited by Pete; 01-27-2017, 02:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • woodrufj
    replied
    I don't see it mentioned here, but did in other windshield discussions.

    There was talk about if the rule was imposed, it might come with a "One time warning allowance".

    I'm not for "warning allowances". Either it's deemed safe as is, or it isn't. For any other actual safety problem, we wouldn't/shouldn't allow "warnings".


    That said, I'm not in favor of any rule book regulation on window cracks. There's uncountable safety situations that can occur and we can't/shouldn't try to capture every single one of them in the rule book, especially subjective safety issues with objective rulers. I'd leave it up to tech and the safety stewards to make windshield judgement calls. If needed, issue a tech bulletin with general advice. My rule of thumb on the phone is "if it's not visually impairing and no full breaches, your okay", but I always reserve the right to reject on site.

    Frankly the more safety issues we try to capture in the book I believe we're taking the responsibility of bringing a safe car off the driver and putting it on us. With that responsibility comes liability.

    Jay W
    Last edited by woodrufj; 01-27-2017, 01:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimR
    replied
    I bought my SE-R in 1998 with a five-inch crack in the windshield, and nothing has changed over the course of 100k abusive miles of RallyCross, Solo, track lapping, and street use. It's not in my line of sight, and the car has passed tech in National RallyCross and Solo (and other orgs) without issue.

    I have some insight into the call for clarity in the rules, so I'm more understanding than a typical entrant. Volunteer event officials need solid guidance. However, I am not the typical entrant. I'm invested with a dedicated RX car, serve the club in some capacity, and have the income to replace something that has not needed replacing thus far.

    I agree that the messaging is potentially obtuse, and possibly a deterrent if the threshold is too low. Effectively, the ask is to for potential entrants to buy a new windshield before they are allowed to spray their car with dirt and gravel. We understand that RX is not an attrition machine just for junkyard beaters, but the hesitation among RX novices is real. Some with minor cracks are going to weight it as a $40 entry fee versus $240 entry fee proposition, then wonder what sort of cost and carnage would demand such a rule.

    If I were me in my school years - eager, but perpetually broke and only having one car - I could see delaying or avoiding RallyCross participation over a windshield replacement that could just as easily buy a bunch of track time, mods, travel, etc. I don't know how to market such a rule to outsiders. It doesn't sound easy, but I would urge caution.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X