Printable View
Several persons have recently pointed out to me that '98 and later Van Diemens continue the stressed floor pan aft of the main roll hoop to the rear end of the engine. If you have one of these cars I would appreciate any confirmation/refutation of this issue. Pics would be nice.
Thanks! Stan
Stan, Do you interpert the rule as not allowing a stressed pan behind the roll bar? My understanding is that it is required between the roll hoops but does not say it can not extend past.
John
Stan,
The floor aft of the rear roll hoop on both my RF99 and RF96 are stressed - one is Stainless steel, the other is aluminum.
Here's what is written [emphasis added] in the GCR. What do you guys think?
Quote:
A stress-bearing floor pan/undertray, minimum of .060” heat
treated aluminum or eighteen (18) gauge steel, is required from
the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. Its curvature
shall not exceed one inch.
Sheet materials attached to the frame by welding, bonding, or by
rivets or threaded fasteners which are located closer than six (6)
inch centers, are defined as stress-bearing panels. Composite or
stabilized materials shall not be used for stress-bearing panels.
The mountings for brake and clutch pedals and cylinders (front
bulkhead), instruments, (front roll hoop bulkhead), and rear roll
hoop bulkhead (behind the driver) may also be stress-bearing
panels. No other stress-bearing panels are permitted.
I brought this up due to the F1000 rules. It clearly needs to be allowed in both F1000 and FC. It seems we can get away with it in FC beacuse it is a "bracket" which houses the engine. The current F1000 rules will allow this.
You can call it a bracket if you want but if said bracket has a stress bearing panel in its makeup and no other stress bearing panels are allowed then the bracket is not legal.
John,
Overall, I agree. But I've been going back and forth on this with Richard Pare while doing the F1000 rules.
This was also part of an input I already provided to the CRB. Hopefully, they will clear it up and make the stressed floor aft of the rear roll hoop completely legal. It could also be considered a safety thing.
The pan behind he roll bar was stressed on my '94 VD.
Believe me, there are plenty of rules that I can see grey areas in and love some of the innovation that comes from these grey areas.
When a rule specifically defines what a stress bearing panel is and then tells you specifically where they are allowed and then goes to say "no other stress bearing panelss are permitted"...how do you justify the legality of what has been accepted in the past?
Now, how does the rule define "sheet", what if I use "plate"? What if I use a number of very tightly spaced .125" x 3" 4130 steel strips? Where is it specified what the minimum/maximum tubing size and number is in any frame members behind the main hoop? Is there a maximum oil pan size? ;)
The stress bearing panels behind the rear bulkhead don't appear legal to me, but if that is what is wanted by the masses than why not put a rule change out for member input before people start custom fabing some unique sheet metal "oil pans"
Stan,
It does not say that the floor pan must end at the rear roll hoop. If the floor pan continues past the roll hoop is it now a different panel? One would think that if it is one contiguous piece then it is still the floor pan. I think even on my RP31 the floor pan continued past the roll hoop to the end of the chassis.
John
John:
The floor pan can indeed extend past the rear main hoop bulkhead, and the front as well. What it cannot do in that extended section is be rivited/bonded/bolted/welded to further framework on 6" or smaller centers. If the centers are greater than 6", then it does not run afoul of the" no other stressed panels are allowed" rule.
Rob Lav:
The FCs cannot "get away with it" by calling it a bracket!
IF it were a "subframe" made up of tubes reinforced by a bonded/rivited sheet, but attached to the main frame by whatever manner on centers greater than 6", then I would agree, and it is a legitimate "bracket". The fastening distance of the sheet to the subframe "bracket" is irrelevant, just because it is a "bracket" (the "brackets can of any shape" rule) and not the frame.
What clearly takes the VD design out of the "bracket" category is the fact that the section of floorpan and the framework that it is attached to are without question continuations of the main frame, and are not removeable except by a blowtorch or buzzsaw.
To suddenly start calling it a bracket is a sham intended only to get clearly illegally built cars legalized!
Rather than change the rule to get the VDs out of hot water at this time, just make them break the bond (if it is bonded) and remove any offending rivits AND split it from the floorpan at the rear main hoop - ie - the extension cannot be the same continuous piece of sheet stock as the main floorpan. It is, after all, ultimately the responsibility of the owner to make sure their car is legal as per the rules, no matter how the car was delivered from the manufacturer or how long ago it was made.
If, however, the Club wants to change the rules effective Nov. 1 for FF,FC, and F1000, to allow the floorpan under the engine to be stressed, I would have no beef at all - it would make design life easier for everybody.
Daryl - you justify it based on the potential impacts of forcing compliance - what's to be gained here? Is this a genuine concern over FC construction or unintended consequences of the F1000 discusisons? Anyone have any original VD assembly drawings showing how the design was intended to be executed? Don't forget that what's on the drrawing and what happens on the shop floor are often two different things.
What if the club went back to correct their screw-up vis-a-vis allowing the original Swift design?
When I replaced the pan on my 94, I just copied the original (note - it could have been modified from as delivered, but I doubt it). Had anyone brought up this rule and made the appropriate clarifications, I'd have been happy to comply at that time. I would have made it two-piece and removable, and it would have saved me at least three engine removals to chase leaks and fix oil pump issues.
Right now, removing rivits and trying to break the bonds without $%#&ing up the whole mess would be a bit of a challenge.
Given the concern over full fields, anything that might result in taking cars out of competition while doing this kind of chassis work would be foolish. From an analytical standpoint, if the area in question does not provide a great deal of strength, then who cares? If it does provide a great deal of strength, then one could assume that the removal of it will eventually result in broken cars, which will need to be fixed, taking them off the track for a race or two. I'd contend that it's probably easier to add a couple of rivits and some glue to cars that don't have the panel stressed than it is to un-stress those that have it (obviously, it would be just as hard if one were trying to do the job properly as opposed to a retrofit).
From an enforcement standpoint, it requires getting the car in the air high enough to get one's head under it, verify the rivit spacing, and inspect for the presence of glue (assuming one could see glue through all the oily filth typical around that structure). Even for those with 6" spacing what do you do to verify no glue - have them drill off the rivits and see that the panel pops loose? I suppose the owner of a car that know's he is in compliance could protest every VD in the paddock and catch more than a few. And for the next couple of months he'd have damn few people to race with.
So it gets down to Van Dieman vs. Reynard, Swift, Citation, Tattus, Mygale, and a bunch of one-offs (and Citation, Tattus, and Mygale are awful close to one-offs). The difference in numbers is pretty staggering.
Of course, it also brings to question the homologation process.........
What does this have to do with homolgation? I also don't understand the comment about numbers; are you indicating that because there are so many VD cars they should be declared legal? Was this not what happened with the width rule some time ago?
Although I am not a historian nor have I been around all that long wasn't this also how the DB1 got past the rule defining the minimum foot box dimensions?
My 2000 VD has a removable bracket under the engine that bolts to the rear bulk head with two bolts approximately 24 inches apart. The floor pan stops behind the rear roll hoop bulkhead. The engine bracket has stainless riveted to it at centers less than 6 inches. That's the way it came from VD and is the way it was homologated.
What really ticks me off is that the car was homologated this way. Every VD since 1998 has come this way. When SCCA homologates a car to me it tells the membership that the car is legal. None of us are trying to cheat and we trust that a homologated car is legal. If we bolt aftermarket pieces on the car such as suspension then it is our responsibility to ensure legality as I did last year with the suspension.
Perhaps SCCA has a different definition but this is what I found when I looked it up.
Homologation (from the verb homologate, meaning to approve or confirm officially) is the certification of a product or specification to indicate that it meets regulatory standards.
A lot of poeple come down hard on VD but they are the only manufacturer out there who will actually produce cars and parts in sufficient numbers to have a class. Try and order a new Citation and see if one ever shows up better yet 20 or 30 a year. I can't even get a returned phone call to buy parts.
If I have to drill out some rivets I will... whatever...
Stan, you might want to ask the same question about the DB-6, Piper and Mygale. My 87 Reynard was riveted at less than 6 inch centers all the way to the oil tank.
Mmm...Doesn't the VD (certainly '98 and newer) have a detachable floorpan under the motor? Its a stressed panel, but not part of the belly pan and therefore comes under Richard's comment that its a 'bracket'.
Ah, Chas, you beat me to it...I think our cars are legal under the rules and certainly under the homologation.
Does Homologation involve a SCCA official actually looking at the car in question and thouroghly checking the construction against the then current GCR in ALL aspects and declaring it legal?
If so, then the VD issue goes one way.
If it involves some sort of certification from the manufacturer to SCCA, ( IIRC, homologation is primairly for safety reasons rollover structure and the like) then I think that the VD's that have stressed panels outside of what the GCR allows are illegal and should be allowed a reasonable time (say til 1-1-08) to correct the issue.
The GCR is very crystal clear: if it is sheet material and it is not the floor pan between the front bulkhead and the rear roll hoop, it is not allowed to be constructed as a stressed panel.
If the VD's are allowed to skip this rule, then why can't I rivet the aluminium side panels in my Citation on very short centers and make the car that much stiffer?
Basically, if it is an honest mistake, correct it in a reasonable time. Don't change the rules or use very very creative interpertations to circumvent them.
Oh and by the way, let's all get over the DB-1 footbox size thing. It is 20+ years old.
Chas:
If indeed you car is made that way - with the lower pan removable and separatable from the main floor pan (at the rear main hoop bulkhead) - then it is a legal "bracket". The fact that the sheet is rivited to the "bracket" framing on centers closer that 6" is irrellevant - the sheet is attached to, and an integral part of, a bracket, not the chassis.
Homologation is NOT a guarantee that the car is totally legal in all aspects - the Club a few years ago stated that homologation was to confirm compliance to the safety rules - so it would actually be rather easy to get a non-compliant car homologated if one really wished, especially if the illegality is hard to see in the pictures that are required to be sent. Non-compliance issues are supposed to be caught first by the car owner, and then Tech.
I personally could care less at this point that some cars may have this problem - it's too late to get it corrected without undue hardship to the owners. However, had I known about it 10-13 years ago, I would have given everyone 60 days notice before protests would start! :D
As to "un-returned "phone calls - it's kinda hard to return calls when messages aren't left!
PS: We sold the chassis building business 12 years ago, so it would stand to reason that it would be difficult to get one ordered! I personally hope to never build a car again - I need to make a real living that contributes towards a retirement fund for once - but I cannot vouch for what Steve's plans are - old habits are hard to break!
Richard,
If you ever figure what a real living that contributes to a retirement fund is and can be found. let me know.
I have been working at a real job for.... longer than I care to admit, and still haven't found it.
:)
If we don't learn from history we are bound to repeat the same mistakes....
I will be pulling my engine in the next week. I'll post pictures of what it looks like but it is most definitely removable (no torch or saw needed) and not part of the floor pan or chassis and is therefore perfectly legal.
Richard, for what it's worth I left two messages, left a message with Steve and left a message on this board asking you to call me. No problem, I got the parts I needed.
Rick,Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
I didn't mean to imply an opinion one way or the other as to whether it "should be allowed" or "not allowed"--no dog in the fight. Only that the rule as written seems pretty clear--if you have a stress bearing panel constructed of sheet behind the main hoop than you are not in compliance.
At the same time the book seems to allow other more expensive and complicated ways to achieve the same end results...why not make it easier and allow the panel to be stress bearing if that is what the class wants? Would be nice to get it all figured out before the F1000 rules become official.
The interesting thing here is that I opened my big mouth and a can of worms on the older cars.:mad: Based on the posts above, the newer cars have a removable structure, but the older ones do not. Anyone have a "virgin" car from the mid 90's - one that they were the original owner and have not yet replaced the pan?
"If the VD's are allowed to skip this rule, then why can't I rivet the aluminium side panels in my Citation on very short centers and make the car that much stiffer?"
Steve - the difference is that putting your side panels on short centers would be a personal modification outside of the original configuration, and illegal. If ICP put together a car and homologated it with stressed panels and the club let it go by, and ICP then built a bunch of them, why should it be incumbent upon the owners to correct the situation 10 years later (I'm talking common sense here, not as legislated in the GCR)? That's also what makes the Swift argument germane.
Are we trying to keep people on the track or not???
Chas: At best homologation is nothing more than a way for SCCA to extract a tax on all new cars.
You as the builder/manufacturer certify that the car you are requesting a homologation for is in conformation with the GCR. No body ever checks. Even if you call attention to a "grey area" and they give you the homoligation papers, you are not immune from the stewards having the final say on the legality of your car. If a competgitior or an official (read tech inspector) protests your car and that protests gets to the appeal court, all bets are off. The Appeals court rulings will over ride anything the CRB says. That ruling will remain in effect untill the end of the year. Also officials do not have to pay protest or appeal fees, but you do.
I have never been protected by the process but I have been nailed no matter how honest and upfront I have been.
Not only could your belly pan be an issue so could your lack of a nose box could be an issue. Read the rules carefully, you are not legal if your nose box is not per the GCR. There is no provision for alternative structures. Are you prepared to defend the argument that 1/2 aluminum honey comb is equivalent to 18 SWG steel or .050 6061 aluminum box structure described in the GCR? That could go either way. I believe that your nose cone is better. But maybe the steward who makes the ruling is a ex-bug eye driver from the seventies and hates formula cars. Remember that this is the Sprots Car Club of America. Nothing said about formula cars.
Take hope, the stewards are capable of very imaginative interpertations of the rules. I don't think any car is legal under the "1 inch deviation of the bottom of the car licked by the air stream" rule.
Rick: I use to think that race cars were way easier decide the winners than showing horses. But the older I get the more I think they are both the same; " you pay for an other persons opinion regardless of the facts". In horse showing, even the horses have ....just like the judges.
Because of the latigious society we live in, I am very careful to build as close to the letter of the rules as I can. This is not even the concern of imported cars. If a car looks legal then we in the colonies are not smart enough to tell the difference.
See picture attached, from an RF99. The structure under the engine at rear is a removable piece.[SIZE=1]1. The chassis shall be of tubular steel construction with no stress-bearing panels except bulkhead and undertray;[/SIZE][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]2. Stress bearing panels are defined as: sheet metal affixed to the frame by welding, bonding, rivets, bolts, or screws which have centers closer than 15.24cm (6 inches).
[/SIZE]Clearly the sheet metal attached to the under-engine subframe is not attached to the frame.
It's attached to the subframe.
Because the panel is not attached to the frame, it can't be a stressed panel as per the GCR definition above.
The subframe is attached to the frame at the rear (behind roll hoop) bulkhead - where stressed panels (in the vertical plane) are explicitly allowed, as above.
Formula Ford rules (FCS D.6.d) also state:[SIZE=1]
[/SIZE]Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels may be nonferrous, of any shape, and fastened to the frame in any manner.
The subframe is a transmission mounting bracket - it attaches the transmission to the frame, via the oil tank.
So it seems that Van Diemen did read the rules, and in my opinion the standard design does comply with the GCR.
Regards,
James
[/SIZE]
The issue does not seem to be with the RF98 and newer VD's. It's with the RF97 and older cars where the belly ban is riveted and bonded continuously from the front bulkhead to the bell.
There is absolutely NO inference that homologation implies legality! The homologation process is aimed at ensuring compliance with the significant safety standards (chassis tube size, nose box, fuel cell, etc.), but it does not address many of the significant areas and restrictions applied to the class. Furthermore, there are differences between the British and US standards, and regardless of what the various dealers might say, these cars are designed for the British market. Finally, as these cars go through modification, repair, development, there are often changes that can make a previously legal car illegal...things like replacing a roll hoop with incorrect tubing or riveting the belly pan under the engine compartment.
This is a small item, but the cat is now out of the bag, and there are MANY cars that are in violation of this part of the GCR. If I were heading to the Runoffs, I'd make certain that I was clean on this one!
Larry Oliver
International Racing Products
Does anyone know when the GCR paragraph and sentance in question first appeared?
Dave
B4 (Formula Continental) says:[SIZE=1]All newly constructed cars shall meet the 1986 construction rules for Formula F cars.
D6 (FF) says:[SIZE=1]
D.6. Chassis/Frame
[/SIZE][SIZE=1]Formula Ford 1986 construction requirements as of January 1, 1986. All new Formula Ford cars are to be built to these specifications covered in D.6., through D.7.h.. (Required for Formula 2000 also.)
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]So I'm guessing at 1986. It's certainly the same wording in my 2001 and 2006 GCRs.
James
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
OK so homologation only applies to safety devices, I'll accept that (frankly I was expecting that answer).
Then riddle me this..... I think we all agree the nose box is a safety device so doesn't that mean by default it must be legal for the car to be homologated? I don't understand how a safety device can pass homologation but be illegal. Therefore doesn't the nose box on a 98 and newer VD have to be legal if the car was homologated with it?
Otherwise the homologation is absolutely meaningless.
Thanks for the photo James. Can we all agree the engine bracket in a 98 and newer VD is legal? One down, one to go....
Not knowing what kind of safety calculations really go into the homologation "process";
On the 90-97 cars, the roll bar is braced to the bell, which carries the load to the pan. If the pan, as delivered with less than 6" centers and glue, was part of the total structure as homologated, wouldn't that still count? Removing the stressed nature of that panel could reduce the efectiveness of the safety structure as a whole.
On the other hand, if the structure on the late model cars is OK because it's a "bracket", and brackets can be attached to the frame in any manner (including welding) then it would seem that the same type of structure, but attached differently on the earlier cars, should be OK.
Maybe someone who was around when the construction rules were developed could shed some light on why it was felt necessary to stop the undertray at the main hoop.....
Rich,
Where does it say the floor pan has to end at the rear roll hoop bulkhead? It states that floor pan must be between the bulkheads, not end there.
John
John,
I dont think it requires the floor pan to end there, it just can't be fabricated such that it would be defined as a stressed panel aft the roll hoop.
The GCR defines a stressed panel, and says that a stressed floor is required to the rear bulkhead.
I think that John has a good shot at arguing that the same panel could be extended further rearwards.
There is no definition or reference to part of a panel being stressed and part not. It's either a stressed panel or it isn't.
A single panel from the front bulkhead to the bellhousing, bonded and riveted to the frame would be a stressed panel, and would satisfy the requirement for a stressed floor from the front bulkhead to the rear bulkhead.
Since it's a single piece it cannot be a different panel from itself - and surely therefore cannot be excluded by the 'no other stressed panels are permitted' rule.
James
I would offer this opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
The floor panel can indeed be a single panel, extending from front to engine, gearbox or wherever. HOWEVER, any rivets used past the rear bulkhead must not be closer than 6". The idea in the GCR is clear; they don't want the bellypan in the engine to be structural in the sense of adding rigidity to the chassis, thereby creating some kind of semi-monocoque. The pan is allowed to be stressed in the general cockpit area for the purpose of greater safety, and not to promote rigidity.
You can argue your points, and each may have some merit, but if I were on the court, this would be my interpretation. So if I found rivets closer than 6" in the engine bay, I'd call it a violation of the GCR.
Larry Oliver
That would make a lot of cars currently being raced illegal; just off the top of my head- Swift DB6, Swift SE3 for sure, VD's from '90 to '97 for starters. I bet there are more.
It seems to me that people today are trying to interpret the rule differently than multiple car manufacturers going back 20 years.
As one of those car manufacturers, I've always thought that the rule was pretty easy to understand and very straight forward!
Stressing the panel from the front bulkhead to the main hoop bulkhead is pretty straightforward - no issues there.
Extending that same panel to the bellhousing, BUT not attaching it to the framing as a stressed panel in that area is "stretching" the rule a little, but to me, still a no-brainer - it gives me no heartache at all. I personally wouldn't do it - I'd rather make it a separate piece of sheet or as a separate subframe because of maintenance issues.
Attaching a separate panel to a detachable subframe in the proscribed "stressed" manner is also legal in my opinion.
Attaching that same extension of the main floorpan as a stressed panel is plainly illegal, no question about it at all.
Just what these other manufacturers were thinking is hard to fathom. Maybe the guy(s) doing the designs at the time just plain didn't read the book carefully enough. It's very easy to get an idea about something formed in your head and not double-check that it is correct!
Has anyone else tried to contact Topeka on this issue? I have had absolutely no response. Not even an auto reply.
John
Finally got a reply... seems that there will be a "clarification" published in the next fast track ( Sept 20 ) that will be effective 10-1. Just in time for the runoffs.
Thank you John Bauer.
Also got a reply from Jeremy stating the same thing.
Seems like maybe they watch this board...
[quote=R. Pare]
Attaching a separate panel to a detachable subframe in the proscribed "stressed" manner is also legal in my opinion.
[quote]
Richard,
wouldn't making that seperate detachable subframe (ie bracket) a "stressed" piece
make it illegal under the 'no other stressed panels' clause?
For about the 10th time:
The "no stressed panels" rule pertains ONLY to the chassis, NOT to sub-frames or brackets. If a section, made-of-whever, is removeable from the main chassis, it is not considered "chassis", and the rule does not apply.
"Finally got a reply... seems that there will be a "clarification" published in the next fast track ( Sept 20 ) that will be effective 10-1. Just in time for the runoffs."
Interesting on how it is classisfied as a "clarification" when it is in actual fact a "rules change" as it deals with the construction of the car!
From www.scca.org: (My emhasis added)
Rule Changes —A rule change typically affects an entire class, a method of car construction, or the manner in which a competitive event is conducted. The Club Racing Board is not authorized to unilaterally implement rule changes; they can only recommend that the Board of Directors approves them. They are published in FasTrack as recommended items and 30 days should elapse to allow all affected parties to submit their comments, either directly to the National Office or to their Area director (or both).
Competition Adjustments — Unlike a rule change, competition adjustments typically affect only one make or model of car and often are a reward for overachieving. When one-make dominance occurs the Club Racing Board acts to slow down the front runners and/or speed up the back markers. This is usually accomplished through changes in weight and/or the diameter of the carburetor venturi or a restrictor in the throttle body on fuel injected models.
Clarifications — While the Club Racing Board, when they write a rule, understand it totally and there is no doubt in the Board of Directors minds when they approved it, ( yea, right!) sometimes a few competitors will interpret it in a completely different manner. Thus a clarification is born. A clarification cannot result in a substantive alteration of a rule, merely an expression of its original intent. If it appears that a clarification will result in a totally new meaning, then it becomes in effect a rule change.
Sorry, CRB, but if this is indeed going to happen, this method is clearly against the Club proceedural dictates, and is therefore void of enforceability. While we all know what and why the Club wants to now change the rule, and mostly agree that there is no harm in changing it, THE RULE CANNOT BE CHANGED THROUGH A "CLARIFICATION".
If someone who knows what they are doing decided to challenge this action at the Runoffs, you will have a hard time beating him back - the Club proceedural dictates are on his side, not yours.
Quite frankly, had the CRB just kept mum on this problem, the chances of anyone issuing a challenge at the Runoffs would have been slim to none because at this point, no one really cares, and a rules change could have been done in the Club mandated proceedure in time for next season.
That is how Van Dieman got by with their illegal front bodywork height back in the early '90s - the cars were clearly illegal, but no one bothered to lodge a protest. Instead, the height restriction got lifted for the following season, and everybody was happy.
And people are usually a LOT happier when the rules are adhered to, not just by their competitors, but by the officials as well!