Stressed loor pan on late model VD's

[R. Pare]

Jim:

Be careful of the word "curvature", unless you want high raises noses. If you don't understand, look up the Glossary meaning of Curvature, use your imagination, and start sketching! I already got the word dropped out of the rules a few years ago because of what it would allow.

[John Robinson II]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3]Richard, here are you answers:[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]If your boss told you to run a line "from" the 15000 volt overheads "to" the transformer on the pole outside of his new house, would you then assume that he meant that the line didn't have to end there, that you could continue that same 15000 volt line to the 240 volt breaker panel? Somehow, I doubt it! [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3]Here the line from the transformer to the house is a different line. The line terminates at the transformer.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana]

If you told your kid (assuming you have one!) to take the trash barrels "from" the garage out "to" the sidewalk, would it be allowable for he/she to assume it's OK to take it to the middle of the street? [/FONT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3]The middle of the street is not the same as the side walk. It is still a floor pan past the rear roll hoop.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana]

Or maybe you wouldn't have a problem if the local bicycle courier picked up your almost-to-late-for-stopping-foreclosure house payment "from" you, and, even though it was addressed "to" your mortgage company, took it instead to the drunk a bit further on down the block?
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3]If that drunk was the banker then it would be ok. If I had to use a bicycle courier to get my “almost-to-late-for-stopping foreclosure” house payment, then I would not have to worry about floor pan on the racecar that I could not afford.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana]
I don't think I'd want to be your kid or the courier in either of those scenarios! [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3]Richard,if you were my son then I would be to damn old to race anything other then to the bathroom and if you were a bicycle courier then I would be homeless and racecarless...lol[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3]John.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[R. Pare]

Richard, here are your answers:

"If your boss told you to run a line "from" the 15000 volt overheads "to" the transformer on the pole outside of his new house, would you then assume that he meant that the line didn't have to end there, that you could continue that same 15000 volt line to the 240 volt breaker panel? Somehow, I doubt it!"

Here the line from the transformer to the house is a different line. The line terminates at the transformer.

And exactly what in his request makes you think that? ? After all, he didn't specify that it ended there, or specify it to be a different line, or specify that the house was to be wired in series with the transformer rather than in parallel. Same logic progression as you want to apply to the undertray!

"If you told your kid (assuming you have one!) to take the trash barrels "from" the garage out "to" the sidewalk, would it be allowable for he/she to assume it's OK to take it to the middle of the street?"

The middle of the street is not the same as the side walk. It is still a floor pan past the rear roll hoop.

And is the bellhousing the same thing as the rear roll hoop? Are you now stating that that sentence specifies the "to" as being the sidewalk, the same as the rules stating the "to" as being the rear main hoop bulkhead?

"Or maybe you wouldn't have a problem if the local bicycle courier picked up your almost-to-late-for-stopping-foreclosure house payment "from" you, and, even though it was addressed "to" your mortgage company, took it instead to the drunk a bit further on down the block?"

If that drunk was the banker then it would be ok.

But only if your banker was also the mortgage company! Again: Is the bellhousing the same place as the rear roll hoop bulkhead? Didn't you specify "to" the Mortage company, the same as the rule stating "to" the rear main hoop bulkhead?

Be careful as to how you apply your logic - the consequences may not be what you'd like!

[fkennette]

My recently rebuilt 97 Swift (UK) FF - ex Mike Sauce - came to me with a stressed floor from a point equal to the aft edge of the engine block to the leading edge of the front bulkhead, the lower edge of which is 4" higher. The underside of the car is still flat as an unstressed extension exists from where the stressed floor angles up to a point equal to the front bulkhead (see pics attached). The opening in the front ducts air to the rads which are now behind the roll hoop, so I interpret this opening as being legal in that regard.

I'd like to see a clarification of the rule such that a stressed floor is allowed from the aft edge of engine block to the front edge of the front bulkhead, and that a separate clause specify that the underside of the floor (stressed or not) have less than 1" curvature. For the record, mine is flat.

I think a huge amount of cars will be made illegal overnight if the interpretation limits the stressed floor pan from the roll hoop to the front bulkhead. That'll really improve car counts (would probably cause me to race in Canada vs. SCCA). I just completetd my first races at Mid-O last weekend, and I enjoyed myself immensely. Please don't turn me off with a narrow interpretation of the rule - just make it fair. I believe my rebuild achieved a flat bottom, and a stressed floor - they're just not exactly in the same plane for the entire underside of the car.

Francis Kennette
Attachment 3150

Attachment 3151

[fkennette]

One more pic from the front:

Attachment 3152

[R. Pare]

Hard exactly to see what is there for framework that forms the front opening and the outside lower edges, but if there is steel tubing framework that forms the front opening and the outside bottom corners back to the point where the sloping upwards starts, and meets the minimum inside width rule, then by past practice, the floor is legal, and I would agree.

However, it could possibly be deemed not legal if those lower corners are not in fact a steel tubing framework that is actually welded to the chassis proper (not a detachable piece of framework) - from previous rulings, the floorpan has to be attached to steel tubing since that is the definition of what is required for "frame" construction. Both the BRD and the Stohr (I think) were built this way, and possibly one other make.

There is actually no problem with the interpretation being clarified as only from the front bulkhead to the main hoop bulkhead, as long as the BOD simultaneously institutes a rule change with immediate effect (GCR 1.2.2.C allows changes by "force of circumstances", of which this is arguably one of those times!). However, that action seems to need to be backed up by the Stewards of the various meets as allowed in GCR 3.6.2..

Oh! Lots of fun!

[Purple Frog]

Richard,

You are one super engineer machinist... but you should have been a lawyer. Seriously, I mean that as a compliment. Better yet, maybe a Supreme Court judge.

Damn, you really read that GCR!

I'm wondering what the design and build process was like when you and LaRue were assembling his car.

Lest I stray, I am curious. Why was it that the powers-to-be didn't allow stressed panels on the side, etc? If the frame itself (without panels) was designed and built strong enough to meet all the homolagation standards, what would it hurt to go ahead and rivet the sides closer than 6" ? What was the intent of that restriction?

[Steve Demeter]

Cause if the sides are allowed to be stressed, next thing you know there will be monoque FC cars out there. Monoque construction with very small light tube frames inside to meet the requirement of tube frame constructiuon.

All this could be done with creative interpertation of the rules if they were to allow side panels to be stressed.

Look at the hoopla over rules interpertation just by requiring a stressed floorpan between the front and roll hoop bulkheads and specifically stating that that is the only stressed panel allowable.

[R. Pare]

Froggie:

Thanks, I think - I'm not really sure if being equated to a lawyer is a compliment, or not! ( Sorry, John!)

One thing that being in this job for the amount of time I've been stupid enough to be involved with building race cars, and with the money I've spent on patent lawyer fees, is that you need to be able to thoroughly understand the implications of what you are writing (or reading) - not knowing patent language well enough at the very start of those processes has cost me a small fortune - it's amasing how those guys can scam the process enough to keep you on the hook for additional fees to "correct" pervious writings!

Actually, John's car is (was) nowhere near what I'd actually like to see an FF built to - not even close. IF a "clarification" goes through that verifies in essence that "if it isn't specified that you can't, then you can", if someone else with enough money steps up to the plate, we can have all sorts of fun! Personally, I believe that an FF could easliy be 1 - 1.5 seconds faster at a track like MO.

But, it's gonna cost you bigtime!

Actually, it is possible to stress any panel you want outside of the specified mandatory and permittable areas - you just have to use a material that is not sheet metal ( the specified material in the "stressed panel" description), does not come under the "no composite construction" rule, and is shaped and fastened in such a way as to not be deemed a monocoque or semi-monocoque structure. All sorts of viable materials and methods are permitted that don't run afoul of those specified.

As my last writing on the floorpan rule, I'll break the rule into the 3 major sentences, and look at what each one specifically states:

1 - the "from" - "to" sentence specifies and limits a single mandatory area.

2 - the "may be" sentence specifies 3 additional optional areas.

3 - the "No other" sentence specifies that only those 4 previously specified areas can be stressed.

Pretty simple, really. But, in the end, it's what the Club powers-that-be think that is what counts!

[James Hakewill]

p58 of the October Fastrack

http://scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/06-10-fastrack.pdf [SIZE=1]

Formula

FF

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]

1. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]Section 17.1.6.D.6.d, clarify the section by adding as follows: A stress-bearing floor pan/undertray, minimum of .060" heat treated aluminum or eighteen (18) gauge steel, is required; [/SIZE][SIZE=1]at a minimum this shall extend f[/SIZE][SIZE=1]rom the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. Its curvature shall not exceed one inch.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]

(Italics are from the original).

James

[/SIZE]