Stan Writes:I don't think Richard said a "Beer Can" provided a significant amount of foot protection. He stated that it would be an increase over nothing. Even to this non-engineer, that statement seems valid.Essentially the entire force of the impact would transfer directly to the chassis, so no, a beer can does not offer any significant foot protection.
I've seen these cars survive roll-overs with no issues at all. The Rules and construction standards adopted to meet and in some cases exceed the rules have proven to be effective. However, when I see a T-Bone incident, or an incident with front end contact with the wall I cringe. Our feet are most vulnerable in these cars. Most of the CF/FF I run with don't have any crush structure at all up front. Others have home grown interpretations of what would work.
Since this new proposed class requires a wing, the wing needs to be supported, so some sort of mount is required. That mount wither it is designed to or not will act as a crush structure. Why can't some do's and don't be written into the rules that these mounts be designed a certain way to protect & crush and not become spears. At very least we should firm up the current standard as a minimum and over time increase that as real world data indicates as it should.
When my proper crush box was broken with minimal contact with trackside debris earlier this year, I was shocked. In repairing it, I doubled up the Aluminum in several places, re-inforced the mounts and added rivets. I'm thinking my next new box, will have the mounts re-visited, may be foam filled and if I find a fabricator, be of composite construction.