2011-1 - In favor
2011-2 - In favor
2001-3 - No opinion
2011-4 - opposed

I'm ok with the first 3 but don't really care about #4.

I was talking to one of my fellow competitors today about the lexan issue. I think this rule needs to happen but it should be re-phrased and isolated to only one of the two windows.

This is a safety issue in my opinion. I have a clear lexan NACA duct in my passenger window and it blocks my mirror. I would like to put one in a rear window so I can see my mirror.

In my opinion, the rule should be:

One rear quarter window may be replaced with Lexan for the purpose of air ducting into the cabin. Lexan may not be used to replace a glass window soley for the purpose of weight reduction; an air duct must be in place. Either window may be replaced in the manner above but not both.

I think that replacing the rear quarter windows with lexan should be allowed on both sides regardless of whether there's a duct there or not. It takes away another glass component that will shatter if hit during a race or accident (possibly cutting the driver or worker helping assist them - especially in rollovers where you have to crawl on the ground). They are so small that it won't do much to help weight and lexan is not all that expensive.

I also like the requirement for the ducting to be in place. E.G. the argument is to allow cooling ducting to be installed - so make it part of the rule.

Given the back hatch is still glass - I don't see swapping the side windows reduces the amount of glass shards in a wreck.

I'd support the lexan side window with the above change.

jaje wrote:


Jaje, I think the fear is that opening up the rule means "everyone HAS to do it" for competetive advantage. If it is only one of the two windows and MUST have a duct, there is no weight advantage. Surely the Lexan+duct+hose weighs about the same as a stock window.