NEHA

Jimi wears his all the time, think he told me he started doing so after rolling at Philo.

I think Jimi wears them because he does not have a window net nor windows. Occasionally, he will install the lexan windows when it is wet.

PRODOG wrote:If I recall the conversation when the rule was written we were trying to eliminate open wheel cars and/or cars without windscreens with just a rear hoop and encourage some kind of front down tubes do tree limbs, etc would have a ramp or other material to deflect before hitting the drivers head/face. That is why the wording is the way it is. I agree it is a little confusing and given the huge interest in Miatas as race cars I think a clearer description is in order for this years rules meeting.

Just out of curiosity, what is the reason for trying to get away from open wheel cars. For example there are some older formula cars that have a tube steel frame that could easily be modified to comply with all our cage constitution regulations (roll bar added, correct size tubing, etc). Or was the intent just to avoid having open wheel cars which didn't have any sort of clothesline protection. I personally think that an older formula car modified to be compliant could be a formidable opponent, and a fairly practical car to run.

The way some are made, altering the cage work for our rules isn't practical in terms of the structure of the car.
The other stumbling block with some of them is we have a rule that says the cockpit must be contained withing the wheel base.
Lastly, the suspension design of many of those cars do not always support the amount of travel/ground clearance that is practical to run our hills.

The more cushion between your drivers seat and the obstacle you hit is a worthy consideration.

Very true indeed, I had forgotten about the drivers compartment rule. I was just looking at pictures side by side of a formula ford and a legends car(similar to Sherman's dwarf) thinking "how hard could it be?"

Formula ford frame I was referring to.

In some cases it is possible to modify the car to meet the rules but some of us still would not run one. I've personally been in a crash that wouldn't have been good in that car. I hit
a tree more or less head on. In that case the front of the car crushed about two feet (trees cut into cars). In the formula car that would have made my legs about two feet shorter. Going sideways into a tree like Joey Kale did last year also would not be good in that formula ford. Some nerf bars would help with that.

Basically it is far from my ideal car in terms of a cage. In my dreams every part of the cage to be about two feet from my body. The formula cars go the other way in that every part of the cage is practically touching your body. So when that side bar bends in 6 inches your ribs are also going to have to move.

I deinately see your point as furmula cars are designed to be driven on a track with wide runoff areas and no trees to run into. I'd still feel safer in a car like a formula ford that had been modified for hill climb than blasting up a hill on a motorcycle. I guess it all comes down to what risks your willing to take. I'd be willing to bet that you could make a formula car like the one in the picture I posted as safe as a dwarf/legends racer with proper modifications (nerf bars, front crush structure, roll cage.) One safety advantage a small car like that has is its low mass. Take a smart car for example they have been crash tested and proven that light weight can prove a great advantage in crash resistance.

As a miata owner I can tell you the hardtop isn't likely to stand up to the abuse in a rollover. It's VERY thin.

I also don't like the design of many bolt in miata roll bars, hence mine being a little more involved and welded in.

Challenger392 wrote:

PRODOG wrote:If I recall the conversation when the rule was written we were trying to eliminate open wheel cars and/or cars without windscreens with just a rear hoop and encourage some kind of front down tubes do tree limbs, etc would have a ramp or other material to deflect before hitting the drivers head/face. That is why the wording is the way it is. I agree it is a little confusing and given the huge interest in Miatas as race cars I think a clearer description is in order for this years rules meeting.

Just out of curiosity, what is the reason for trying to get away from open wheel cars. For example there are some older formula cars that have a tube steel frame that could easily be modified to comply with all our cage constitution regulations (roll bar added, correct size tubing, etc). Or was the intent just to avoid having open wheel cars which didn't have any sort of clothesline protection. I personally think that an older formula car modified to be compliant could be a formidable opponent, and a fairly practical car to run.

Drew will have to chime in, but it seems this should state "open cockpit cars". (see bold above)

I agree that open cockpit may be more accurate.