dont really have time to read this WHOLE thing but... its there some campain afoot that would REQUIRE these panels in FC cars etc ???
REALLLY ?? or is this just banter about how to make things safer .... ??
Printable View
dont really have time to read this WHOLE thing but... its there some campain afoot that would REQUIRE these panels in FC cars etc ???
REALLLY ?? or is this just banter about how to make things safer .... ??
banter
Kevin ,
How many posts were actually relevant to the topic you brought up?How many people posting even know what the hell they are talking about?Doug I am going to insult all your members and call them all exactly what they are Whining bags of BS!!! I hope everyone is offended , please do me a favor and kick me off of here (what once sounded to me like a good idea has become an immense waste of my time) , thanks for your effort in establishing this website but I myself will no longer be visiting ,it just has become too ridiculous if I can figure out on my own how to "unsubscribe" I will but you could do me the favor please of banning me for life
Kevin
thanks !! I was thinking I MISSED something!
personally I think these cars are pretty safe, if they need to be 100% with out RISK, well maybe racing ... or sports isnt for you ( ..NOT you kevin .. You in the broad generic "you" )
thanks !!
errr now I am wondering what I missed ? Topic I brought up ? I simply answered Greg straight forward question. Simple internet debate and not a rule change he needed to worry about. maybe more decaf ?
After reading this thread, I am starting to worry about getting into my club ford. Safety is relative, there have been at least 3 snowmobilers killed in BC this winter so far, but no one is screaming for safer sleds. I think, like Greg, that these cars are pretty safe and you have to do the best you can within the rules or start a real campaign to change the rules.
Not to restart this thread but to make a point. Tim Paul was racing at the WG Pro race and was hit on side of his cockpit. The nose of the other car pierced the intrusion panel and went into the cockpit a good ways in. I know according to the Old Salty's this is impossible. Hat's off to Tim for being part of the impossible.
I didn't see the hit but I was in the same paddock and saw the after effect.
The nose of the other car was clearly in the cockpit. Anything that is orange is the other cars parts. It pushed the Aluminum cockpit insert about 3 to 4 inches into the cockpit. Tim was limping a bit. I'm not sure how bad he was hurt but the car and cockpit was clearly compromised. I'll leave it to him to comment on his well being.
If the panel was attached to the outer tube frame it would not have pushed into the cockpit so much and never penetrated the cockpit area. Maybe it's time to take a look at better ways to protect the cockpit area for all brand cars.
looks poised to pop the driver's left leg sharply, which then meets driver's right leg with hobbling results.
As you and the GCR suggest, fastening the AL panel outside the framerails provides an additional inch of impact crush space per side, which would have helped limit the nose intrusion here while lowering the impact acceleration. If a member wants to add panels, then do it.
While the available free space within a VD RF02 dash bulkhead likely precludes this, I think knee pads or a GP2-like knee separator cushion are good design elements.
Rick
a couple years ago Craig Clawson got a half shaft impaled through his car at WG, but what are you going to do its all part of the sport.
Peter
Peter:
I'm going to agree to disagree with you. Putting a panel on outside of the tubeframe the car would do a lot to stop this stuff from a happening. The sport is inherently dangerous but that doesn't mean you have to ignore things that could help in the safety dept.
What I saw on the Radon could easily be put on my car. I've never looked into the cockpit of a Piper or Citation so I'll refrain from commenting on those. Take a look at the fast guys times at WG. They're flying. the faster you go the more impact speed you will inevitably have when the contact comes.
Jimmy
1 - Car owners have always been free to upgrade the layers of kevlar used in the bodywork or the thickness of the metal panels attached to the outsides of the frame rails. Your level of protection in your car is ultimately up to you.
2 - The fact that the tip of the nose cone is uncrushed tells me that it was built way too strong.
3 - An allowance to use all 3 methods of current side impact protection was part of the re-write that was shelved last year - the need has been obvious to us "Old Saltys" for years. Talk to the CRB about that.
4 - MAYBE the re-write will get done this year if enough pressure is put on the CRB.
Rick:
I was thinking more along the lines of a composite material panel.
Jimmy
Richard:
I'm someone who is not an Old Saltly just someone who wants to enjoy the sport I love and be as safe as I can. I'd like to be able to put something on the outside of my frame that does a better job of protecting me that what I have. I'd also like it to be light if possible.
Jimmy
Jimmy:
You are free to add to the layers of kevlar in the side panels - the GCR requirements are a minimum, not a maximum. I'd personally shoot for .080" or so, and use the most flexible resin I can find so as to allow the kevlar to act correctly.
As the rules are currently stated, if you don't have kevlar in the side panels, you have to have metal panels attached to the outside of the frame tubes. If that is how the car is constructed, you can always increase the thickness.
Further, you are also free to add tubes to the frame alongside the driver to aid in this regard. 1" x .049 steel tube only weighs 1/2 pound per foot, so the addition of 10 feet strategically placed would only add 5 pounds to the car.
Unfortunately, no matter what the upgrade method, it will add weight, so if you are already minimum-weight challenged, you will want to find other places to remove weight to compensate.
If other owners would make sure that their nose tip is not made too strong so that it acts like a piercing point the way this one did, that would help a lot also.
If the rules do indeed get re-written (and passed this time), at the minimum the side protection requirements should be reworded to allow any combination of the 3 allowances.
At some point, an allowance or requirement will be made for alternative materials and construction techniques, but the sticking point remains the methods of attachment that will be allowed.
Richard:
I weigh more than I'd like personally. I like my Guinness too much to give it up. I'm not sure where else I can lose weight on my car. As far as adding extra kevlar to the existing bodywork, I think there has to be a better way than that. I feel the same on the tubing. I want to write a check to a person and buy a panel that accomplishes what I'm looking for. That is to stop most objects from ending up hitting me in case of a side impact. There are a lot of people on this forum who are capable of doing all the things you mentioned. I'm not one of them. I'm a computer guy. There are a lot of racers just like me. For us, we'd like someone to sell us a panel that does the job. I saw a lot of Firman's, Van Diemen's, a Citation and Piper this weekend. There is a market for such a device. I had let Kyle by me coming out of the boot. He got so squirrelly that I though it was inevitable that I was going to tee bone him. He made a great save so hat's off to him but just barely. At the speed I was going. I would have harpooned him good.
I do know that Tim is VERY lucky to not have been hurt badly. I also know that all our cars no matter what brand could have externally mounted (Outside the tube frame) composite panels to help with this issue that would not add a lot of weight. How do I make a request for that to be brought up in front of the crb?
Jimmy
You can submit a request to the CRB. However, for it to get any real consideration, you will want to submit construction details and test results as part of the request. I believe that the CRB is looking into this right now, and if so, they would be happy to get more solid information to base their decision on.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimh3063
In the meantime, start researching what the weight gains would be for alternative additions under the current rules restrictions.
Another means of adding protection is to add strength and/or crush resistance to the sidepods themselves.
PS: The "impossible" that you mentioned earlier would have been even worse if the dropping of the requirement for a nose impact attenuator had stayed in place.
Richard:
Thanks for the info. I'm not a composite guy and have no idea where and how to build the panel. My Stohr had a panel for both the cockpit and foot box. Something like that is exactly what I'm talking about.
As I mentioned, I'm a Computer Engineer not a composites guy. I'm not bad with a can of tiger hair and some sandpaper but that's not what we're talking about.
Maybe I'll lob an email into Wayne.
Thanks,
Jimmy
Maybe you could find where someone said that is impossible? We both know that no one said anything like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimh3063
Does anyone have any more details of the crash? How fast was the other car going and what was the condition of Tim's body side panels before the crash?
Wren:
Tim's car looked in great shape to me. I'd chalk it up to wrong place at the wrong time.
It' doesn't matter how or who, it happened. I'd like to verbally joust all day with you but I have to work so I can pay my racing bills.
Good day,
Jimmy
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimh3063
There are plenty of composites shops that can do the job for you if you cannot do it yourself.
However, bear in mind that until the rules get changed, you are allowed to use only ONE of the methods as stated in the GCR, so if there is kevlar in the body side panels, you cannot add a separate kevlar or metal panel to the frame unless you remove the kevlar in the bodywork. Yes, that sucks, but that's the current rule.
Adding the extra layers of kevlar to the existing bodywork will be the easiest to accomplish, but the people doing the work will need to have the car in their shop so that they can add some temporary framework to the outside of the panels to ensure that they will fit properly once the extra kevlar is added.
Richard, not to be picky, but the post 86 rules state that chassis braces between the upper & lower frame rails shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material. So you would have to use 1"x.080 instead of .049" ?
That would be for vertical rails - I was referring to horizontal rails like what you see in the sides of stock cars. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.
from Sprint's prep in the garage...
Save me from looking this up, but would it be legal to just attach say .080 alum sheet to the outside of the frame, spacing the steel rivets 6.25" apart and be done with it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenn cooper
It would be legal. That's the way my car is. Except it's .063 aluminum.
Jerry
As I understand it, that would be legal only if your bodywork does NOT have it's dose of Kevlar. I think I'm reading that you can only use one method for protection, not all of them at once.
Brian
I know that is the case for FC. I don't remember off the top of my head if that is true for FB. Either way, your chances of being protested for that are small.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian
Don't shoot the messenger, I voted for the ruled that would have allowed both.
I happen to think that the cars' designs are nowhere close to being "pretty safe"...it's just that the frequency of these accidents are so low that we (as a group) seem to find the risk level acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Smith
I have attached the current general FIA specs for space-frame cars. This would be a good place to start for anyone considering improvements to the current SCCA rules. In my opinion, there is room for considerable safety improvements in the SCCA tube-frame classes.
This thread needs [as far as I'm concerned needs more input] its winter and put to rest the worry about halfshafts driven through my beer belly ...Quote:
Originally Posted by glenn cooper
I wonder why you contend 6.25 inches when the rules say centerline of 15.24 cm centerline spacing which is 6 inches ... :beer: ... :beer:
I withdraw my sugesstion that Mr Cooper contention ["steel rivets @ 6.25" spacing]
it has been pointed out it's just more more then 6 inches to comply ...
I was looking for opinions on a few ideas for my RF78 CLub Ford.
Would 1"x.035 or 7/8"x.049 4130 tubing be viable alternatives to the 1"x.049 recommended as additional support for the Aluminum side panels? ("filling in" some of the larger openings)
Which of the following designs would provide better overall protection? They have nearly identical weight penalties.
1) Horizontal 1" tubing forming a middle "frame rail", backing up .090" 6061T6 side panels.
2) No additional tubing, but .125" AL panels.
3) .063 side panels, with a second .063 layer doubled up in certain critical areas.
The 1/8" panel would obviously have better sharp penetration resistance, but wouldn't reinforce the basic tube frame any. Would it be stiff enough for a heavy blunt impact?
Thanks in advance,
Steve