It's called a Driver's Safety Cell for a Reason!

[Rick Ross]

As has been pointed out by various posters here, it is definitely possibe to construct a tube frame chassis in such a way that it offers essentially equivalent safety to a carbon tub car. Indeed, the FIA has recently established tube frame standards which go a long way towards meeting this goal. These standard require real front and rear impact attenuation, a head surround, as well as composite side intrusion panels.

But.....are any current SCCA formula cars constructed in this specific manner? I don't think so. Everyone has a different perception of safety, but in my opinion a Swift 014a Atlantic tub (for example) is definitely safer than any FV,FF,FC,FB,FM, etc. car currently racing in SCCA. If you go to an SCCA event, most or all of the formula cars present will be older tube frame designs. I do not accept the argument that these older cars are as safe as the more modern carbon fiber Ralt or Swift chassis's. The tube frames probably handle front and rear impacts pretty well, but they simply do not offer the same level of side impact or of intrusion protection as a carbon monocoque.

Within the SCCA world, carbon tubs will in fact offer real safey advantages until we change the specifications of our tube frame chassis cars. Changing these standards will add weight to the cars. Could anyone build a 1000 lb FB car to the current FIA specs? I don't know.....it would be interesting to find out.

[nulrich]

Rick:

I believe tube frame construction is the best approach for club racing cars, but the current safety standards are woefully inadequate, especially in terms of side impact and penetration resistance.

Unfortunately, the most recent rule change (for 2012) for cockpit protection in FF and FC actually prevents cars from being made safer. The proposed rules changes for 2013 would be a further step backward. The current FB rule that prevents composite materials from being used for "any structural purpose" means you can't add any effective side impact or penetration resistance (any good composite cockpit protection panel will affect the structure of the car).

The biggest problem in SCCA club racing is that very few people truly understand composites and there's an inherent distrust of materials like carbon fiber. They either think carbon fiber is some magical material that makes any car it touches infinitely stiff or that it is as fragile as glass and will immediately shatter under the slightest impact.

The current FIA standards for add-on side panels for tube frame cars are problematic. They have to be 10 mm thick Zylon, I believe, and are attached with U-bolts around the tubes. The weight and cost of that type of panel will be prohibitive enough that no FF/FC/FB competitor will add them. They also aren't legal in FB since they add to the structure of the car.

By bolting our composite panels (on six-inch centers) to the frame of the car we were able to keep the overall weight comparable to a conventional tube frame car without panels. That allows a dramatic improvement in side impact protection while keeping cost, weight and stiffness about the same as a conventional tube frame. I think it's the best way to combine the advantages of tube frame construction with the safety benefits of modern materials. I believe the Stohr takes a similar approach but with bonded panels (which allows an improvement in chassis stiffness).

We built the Rn.10 FC car to 2009 F3 safety standards and I believe the car is safer than many F3 and FA cars. There's a limit to what you can do in terms of side impact attenuation with only 950 mm of overall width in FF/FC, so a car like the Swift 016 is going to be better in side impacts...and that car in particular is really stout! I think the 014 and RT-41 have also been proven to be safe cars.

Nathan

[Wren]

The current FB rule that prevents composite materials from being used for "any structural purpose" means you can't add any effective side impact or penetration resistance (any good composite cockpit protection panel will affect the structure of the car).

...

The current FIA standards for add-on side panels for tube frame cars are problematic. They have to be 10 mm thick Zylon, I believe, and are attached with U-bolts around the tubes. The weight and cost of that type of panel will be prohibitive enough that no FF/FC/FB competitor will add them. They also aren't legal in FB since they add to the structure of the car.

Of course, the FB rules specifically allow carbon side panels to be added to the car. H.2.C.3

[brownslane]

Of course, the FB rules specifically allow carbon side panels to be added to the car. H.2.C.3

But still not bonded. More strength could be added with a "bit of glue"

let me assure the intrusion panels as allowed in H.2.C.3 DO WORK! I had a friend experience a big shunt and the panels negated the personal (bodily) damage that would have occurred when the suspension arms tried to skewer him!

Nathan, I absolutely agree with you; there are lots of ways to (relatively) inexpensively and easily improve the safety of these cars.

Now unleash the lawyers; anything that is written can (and will) be used against you....I am sure that any safety requirements that are invoked need to vetted through SCCA lawyers....imagine the repercussions if any safety ruling ended up (in a freak accident - but aren't they all) causing injury...something like a head restraint that broke someone's neck. I am sure that PI lawyers would try and use the rule that mandated the safety ruling against SCCA...even though the safety ruling may have saved many lives/injuries. Heck, there was an ill-advised (IMHO) thread a while ago blaming HANS for broken collar bones......even though the collision may have caused death without the occupant using a HANS.....it is a litigious society out there!

Sometimes your hands are tied, and the "best" thing to do is nothing at all.....

I am not advocating this, just stating what I see might be holding back what we see as progress.

Best,

[Rick Ross]

I probably should clarify that I am not suggesting that tube frame cars are "unsafe"......just that a carbon fiber tub (e.g. Swift 016) is in many respects "safer" than most tube frame cars that you will find today at an SCCA event. That said, I would not hesitate to drive a Radon, Citation, Phoenix, Piper, etc. that was properly maintained.

The primary safety risks in all these cars is exposure to head injuries, and there are some tube frame designs out there that probably offer better head protection than my Ralt. However, as Nathan has pointed out, probably the safest formula car racing in SCCA currently is the Swift 016a. I suspect that the impact, penetration, and head protection provided by this chassis is far superior to any tube frame, as well as many of the older carbon monocoques (e.g.Ralt).

[Canadian Formula 3 Championship]

I'm glad to see that alot of people have viewed, commented and took interest in this posting. There has been alot of good information passed back and forth, probably one of the better references on the net for this topic.

[F five hunj]

I'm glad to see that alot of people have viewed, commented and took interest in this posting. There has been alot of good information passed back and forth, probably one of the better references on the net for this topic.

Yes, thankfully someone else came into this thread and posted some good, factual information.

[Canadian Formula 3 Championship]

yes, but you didn't! I think everyone whom participated contributed to some good factual information. So, Pot-Shots aren't welcomed on here, please move on.