"Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net> wrote:
>
...
>
> BTW -- just looked at 3.3A and 3.3B and I don't find them ambiguous at all.
> Well, maybe a little, but it is language use, not numbers.
Since I disagree with your interpretation, the language must be
ambiguous. Yes, I would _like_ to read it the way you do (and
the way it was apparently interpreted at Nationals), but since
I cannot imagine why anyone would put "full height" in 3.3A if
"minimum height" is acceptable, I can only read it as forbidding
the use of upper body restraints (including Turner straps) if the
bar is allowed only because of the 'convenience' exception.
> First, 3.3A says the full harness "may not be used" be used in an open car
> without roll bars "meeting the full Height requirement of Appendix C. So now
> you know a rollbar is required.
Absolutely, and it would seem that there will be cases where a
rollbar that is allowed to be on the car by Appendix C and 3.3B
is not sufficient to permit the use of upper body restraints.
Otherwise, why the caveat?
> Second, Appendix C says "It is strongly suggested" (the word "required" is
> never used) that the rollbar be at least 3 inches above the driver's helmet.
> This is funny in that the roadracing GCR specifies 2 inches, but that is
> irrelevant.
It also requires that it be above the helmet, then provides an exception.
> Third, 3.3B says that as a minimum a rollbar "must" conform to Appendix C.
BTW, I think this can be read as a total ban on "style bars", which
are either roll bars that do not meet Appendix C or braces that are
in violation of another rule. Sticky item for first-timers, however.
> Add that to the "may not" language of 3.3A and I guess that takes care of
> "strongly suggested." (except that my car, built to GCR rules, only needs
> the 2" clearance. But that is irrelevant for you).
I don't see your point here. I always assumed that the wording
in 3.3B concerned your next item.
> Fourth, it states a specific exception for Stock/SP vehicles that permits
> the "highest possible height which fits within a factory specified removable
> top."
>
> Conclusion: You have an SP car, thus a rollbar that barely lets you put the
> top up is legal to let you run full harness in Solo II.
My conclusion is that such a bar is an exceptional case, one that is
allowed to be on the car by 3.3A (anything else being an illegal brace)
but that does not meet the _full_height_ requirement of Appendix C unless
the top of your helmet is even with or below the top of that bar.
To clarify, perhaps you could state what roll bar would be allowed by
3.3A but not meet the "full height" requirement of 3.3B? If there are
none, that language should be removed from 3.3B.
|