Mark Hubley

I'm on the tall side, and I've always been a bit bent out of shape about requirements for roll-bar extensions and broomstick rules. Maybe I'll fuss in more detail later.

Anyway, I've heard/read that VIR is really strict about these rules and that they require the roll-bar extension even if the driver isn't overly tall.

Well, in the latest issue of Automobile Magazine they report on testing a number of cars on track at VIR, including a Boxster Spyder. Apparently the folks at VIR are willing to make exceptions to their rules (that is, if I do understand their rules correctly).



No B-K extender, and I don't think this guy satisfies the broomstick rule either.



I think if he were sitting straight up, his helmet would be above the line.

Anyways, thanks for letting me indulge in this little rant. Perhaps I would be in trouble if I were to go shiny-side-down in my Boxster. However, I think PCA and VIR would have no problems letting me drive a 1970's-vintage 911 on the track, and would I really be safer in one of those cars? I think in the vast majority of circumstances (perhaps even a roll-over), I would be safer in the Boxster.

smlporsche

Let me shed some light on this...

VIR requires the roll bar extensions on the 986 variants of the Boxster (2004 and before).

On the 987 the roll bar and top was redesigned and given more head room so an extension isn't necessary...

Now you know!

racer

You pay enough money and you can do anything. Yes, there is a double standard in play no doubt.

My recollection for need of the extension may be less about broomstick rule but MORE about having the rollbar dig into soft soil. Someone must think a long smooth top, vs 2 hoop tops, have less likelyhood to stick in the surface and cause a problem.

Just get shorter, or a roof, and you'll be fine

Mark Hubley

Yes, I remember something about VIR wanting a horizontal bar rather than double hoops. Here are some comments off a Rennlist thread titled, "987 Boxsters allowed at VIR?"

"At VIR ONLY, the Boxster roll hoops alone are NOT considered acceptable. The Brey-Krause extender MUST be attached and the driver must meet the 2-inch rule."

The "2-inch rule" refers to the requirement that the top of the driver's helmet must be 2 inches below the line drawn between the top of the windshield and the top of the roll bar.

I haven't seen anything on the VIR web site or gotten any other offical word.

As noted above, I'm sure Automobile Mag has more pull with VIR than I ever would!

And . . .

Mark Hubley

Oh, and by the way, regardless of the roll-bar extension rule, there's no way that driver's helmet sits 2" below the broomstick line.

racer

I guess you need to buff up your press credentials for when you go there

And while I don't know it to be true, it could also be an extension of the PCA insurance policy?

Mark Hubley

You don't think "chair of biological sciences" credentials will get me a break?

Bruce R

That is correct, been to VIR many a time in my '00 986 S with BK bar and a friend in his '05 987 did not run the BK bar, neither of us sat anywhere near 2" below the "broomstick" with a helmet on. Rock on!

Mark Hubley

Have any of your visits to VIR been with PCA?

Bruce R

All except one with BMW CCA.
PCA regions, included, NNJR, Carolina's and FSR.
Each time I sweated the tech inspection and never once has anyone made a comment about the bar, nor clearance (I'm 6'1").

smlporsche

Yes, probably about 50 times as this is my "home track"

Our club, Blue Ridge PCA, has done tech for several clubs we run with and this is the rule we go by.

Renn 951

I asked one of the PCA Potomac Tech Inspectors about this last year. He commented that the track isn't doing their own technical evaluation; the Club does the daily tech inspections and if they give you a sticker then you are good to go. The Club does invoke the "broomstick" rule, but there is no Club requirement to have an extender bar connecting the two roll hoops. And even though I am 6 ft 2, with the 987 I do pass the broomstick rule.