Side panels and other upgrades

[jimh3063]

Steve:
I've left vmail at Elan this morning to get more info on the panels they have.
Once I get the info and pics, I'll post them. Maybe the mounting process used in Europe would overcome the issues with adding rigidity. Who knows it may be the solution.

To add a little more info for Mike, who asked about my motivation and had every right too, I had a real bad crash in practice in 2004 at the Winter Nat's in Sebring. I think Peter Gonzalez may have photos of it. I think I was very lucky to not have been badly hurt. It got me thinking about how lucky I was. I sold my VD that year and had driven a Radical and Stohr for the years in between then and 2009.I definitely felt the protection offered by both of those cars was a lot better than my VD. I also had come to the conclusion that that class is VERY expensive to run in at a high level. With that said, I'm back in FC.

I ran my first FC Pro Race at Lime Rock this year. Lot's of fun but I wasn't prepared for was the level of off's and crashes. I'm sure it comes with the territory when running at that level. That got me thinking of the crash in 03 and how I could end up not so lucky the next time. I can tolerate the cost level in FC, the people are great, and the racing is great as well. The 2 things that I think could be better and are both somewhat intertwined. The cockpit protection doesn't leave me with a whole lot of warm fuzzies and hasn't changed one bit since I ran my VD in 2003. The other thing was that the class seems to be dying in the Northeast. As cars clock out and go to CFC and nothing new seems to be coming along. What happens eventually to FC? There's a lot of smart people who've been at this longer I've been alive. I'm sure the solution for both problems is out there somewhere. My background is computers and not cars. I'm with Hazelnut when he states racing is more fun than golf. I just have never heard of anyone getting t-boned in golf.

If Peter G is out there and reads this, PM me please.

Jimmy

[Dennis McCarthy]

Steve what about a side panel that utilizes a weldment, while it would stiffen the chassis it would eliminate the problem of working loose.

[jimh3063]

Steve:
What about what Dennis said but with a bushing or pliable grommet of some sort with a large washer over it and the panel? Maybe that gets the protection without the added rigidity? Like I said, not a mechanical engineer but I do believe we can have our cake and eat it to so to speak.

Jimmy

[Steve Demeter]

If one wants to maintain a strictly tube frame construction and improve side intrusion resistance, why not just put more tubes in the critical areas. Say between the roll hoop and the dash bulkhead?

Make the now very large open areas between the tubes much smaller and stop thenot so small objects from entering.

On the flip side, I would support allowing the body (that is licked by the airstream) in the same area to be free construction and attached in a manner similar to today'y methods. Now that last part would open up another can of worms.

Either alternative is relatively not expensive to implement.

As far as the Radon goes, hindsight being 20/20, I would have asked before I invested the money in tooling and parts if the planned design was legal or not. could have saved a ton of grief for a lot of folks.

[jimh3063]

Steve:
I was looking at mounting separate panel on the inside of the outer bodywork and outside of the cockpit tubeframe mainly because it allows us all to keep my current bodywork and spares we already have and gives us the protection we need. Any thoughts on how to securely mount such a panel without breaking the rules?

Jimmy

[jimh3063]

Steve:
I thought this conversation was actually starting to get productive. Let's keep the R word out of the thread. Let's talk about this as a group to come up with a solution for the cars we already have. If I win the lottery my opinion my change!!

Jimmy

[Brandon Dixon]

Steve:
I was looking at mounting separate panel on the inside of the outer bodywork and outside of the cockpit tubeframe mainly because it allows us all to keep my current bodywork and spares we already have and gives us the protection we need. Any thoughts on how to securely mount such a panel without breaking the rules?

Jimmy

Is there a reason not to bond/mount them to your bodywork?

[jimh3063]

Brandon:
It would allow me to have one intrusion panel that was never removed and multiple side panels if I wanted to repaint, repair or modify.

Depending on what I get back from Elan, I thought it may get me where I'm trying to go without a ton of additional work and pain. All I would need is to come up with a mounting process that doesn't break the rules.

Jimmy

[Jnovak]

Jimmy, I suggest that you consider putting several layers of Kevlar on the inside of your body side panels. This will really help. You could then put the interior panels in the chassis to protect the bones from breaking against individual frame members in a side crash or impact.

If you ever take a bad side impact the side panels will need replacing in any case.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[jimh3063]

Jay, thanks for the input. I would would toss the intrusion panels if I was in a crash.
I would hope that they did there job and were money well spent at that point.

Depending on how this thread pans out, I was thinking of talking to Mike about making a panel if the Elan ones were crap or too expensive.

Stay warm,
Jimmy

[Wren]

What is European FF doing? Those guys seem to tear up a lot of cars.

Is there an FIA spec for mounting side impact panels? Is that the one that allows one u-bolt per corner and one u-bolt in the middle?

[jimh3063]

I'm curious, if the bolt end of the u bolt were on the cockpit side, wouldn't it point on the side where my fat ass sits and interfere with the panel inside the cockpit (I think I'm allowed to insult myself. Doug, can I get a ruling on that one. I just cracked 200lbs this week). If it were on the outside I would think it would interfere with the mounting of the external bodywork. I thought Dennis was heading down the right track but with some kind of bushing that allows a little float on the mounting point.
Again not my area of expertise just thinking out loud.

[RussMcB]

How about a very large intrusion panel on each side that fits between the frame rails and bodywork? As long as it spanned a bunch of tubes, maybe attachment points every 6"-7" would be plenty to hold it in place (especially if combined with Demeter's suggestion above to add more tubes).

[Wren]

I think the U part of the bolt goes around the tube on the inside of the car and the bolt part sticks towards the outside of the car.

[jimh3063]

Wren, on my car at least the bolt on the outside would interfere with mounting the bodywork.

Russ, I can't get my head around what your talking about. As far as welding in more tubes, aren't we adding stiffness by adding more tube material. Again, just thinking 'out loud.

I was hoping for easy easy fix to a glaring problem. I guess nothing is ever as easy as it sounds huh?

My goal is not to stiffen the car. My goal is to not have wishbones and car parts on my lap or in my side.

Jimmy

[S Lathrop]

Jimmy;

You mentioned your crash experience. I have put 2 cars that I drove in the dumpsters after big crashes. Additionally there are several crashes that have involved my cars that I am basing a lot of my opinions on.

The main lesson that I take from those crashes is that the frame has to be sufficient unto itself to protect the driver and keep the safety protection features in place. The seat and the belt system are first and last safety items. Working out from there is the frame structure and the driver's compartment protion of that frame. Finally are those things that protect the frame such as the nose box, side pods and body side panels. All of this combines to give the necessary driver protection.

One of my FC Citations was involved in an end to end flipping crash that was so violent that the driver lost his helmet on the first bounce. He did require a trip to the hospital for a night's sleep but drove home the next day. The frame was compromised when the belly pan forward of the dash failed because belly pan was incorrectly installed. At the end of the crashing, it was the integrity of his seat, belts and the frame that saved him from serious injury. Another characteristic of that crash was that the car was nearly 10 years old and the driver had limited experience. It was a pro FC race though.

I have had several cars that we have had to replace the engine bays following big front end crashes. Again, the driver's compartment survived without compromise.

It is experiences such as these that I base my opposition to "hybrid" frame construction. In a hybrid chassis, the joints are the weak link. In a properly designed tube frame or composite tub, the load bearing members determine the strength not the joints. Composite tubs have evolved to the point where they are 2 main sections and a series of bulkheads. The joint for the 2 main sections is wide, simple and in a low stress area. I see the hybrid as being less than either a tube frame or a composite tub.

Mounting anti-intrusion panels with a grommet or rubber bushing would work as well. The u bolt would have to be padded to keep from damaging the frame finish. In any event the mounting system must take into account the differences in the mechanical properties to the panels and the frames.

[Daryl DeArman]

It would appear that SCCA doesn't care much about how safe you are from side impact. If you thought they cared, take a look at the FV in my garage they'd be happy to have join their grid.

We are each welcome to add as many tubes and layers of kevlar we wish, they just don't want us to be safer/stiffer/lighter.

I thought a long time ago, why not just design the seat to be almost full body length? Attach it to the frame and pan, just keep the fastening points at 6" or more so that your seat can't be called the GCR defined "stress bearing panel."

One possible unintended consequence is somebody will come up with a rule to define how large the seat may be and how it may attach to the chassis.

As far as getting approval of a design prior to cutting material; that is absolutely no guarantee that the rule wouldn't be changed after public release whether it was legal at design time or not.

[S Lathrop]

Steve:
I was looking at mounting separate panel on the inside of the outer bodywork and outside of the cockpit tubeframe mainly because it allows us all to keep my current bodywork and spares we already have and gives us the protection we need. Any thoughts on how to securely mount such a panel without breaking the rules?

Jimmy

For my cars, I prefer the idea of making the body side panels the anti-intrusion protection. The added cost is not much.

This discussion is getting somewhere in new information that is being brought forward. What I find interesting is the alternatives to Kevlar or other materials that can be used in conjunction with Kevlar and glass in a very cost effective way.

[Hardingfv32]

Do the body panels have to be made with epoxy resin to successfully bond Kevlar to them? I assume the Kevlar layers require epoxy resin.

Do the Kevlar layers depend on the body panel for anything other than positioning?

Brian

[jimh3063]

Daryl:
Come clean I can read between the lines.
"safer/stiffer/lighter" You are either working for Trojan or Pfizer or you have condoms or viagra on order.

Jimmy

[R. Pare]

Only a quick couple of observations - today and tomorrow are rather filled with things before heading to PRI Wednesday morning.

Jim:

You can legally add all the tubes you want to your frame as both stiffeners and for safety - the tube frame is not required to stay exactly as the manufacturer supplied.

Quickshoe:

The safety levels the Club strives for are in large part member driven, so as a member, you have ample opportunity to lobby for whatever minimum required level of safety for you class that you feel fit.

That's what this whole thread is about, after all!

Adding panels in between existing bodywork and the frame:

Possible on some cars, buy not very practical on some where the bodywork runs right up against the frame rails. That said, we probably need to add that allowance since new designs can then plan for their use while still in the design stage.

Side Attenuators:

All existing cars can currently add side attenuators as they see fit. The Brits do require a certain height and depth, which while good from the standpoint that it assures a certain level of protection, such a requirement cannot be incorporated over here since we do not want to force everyone to have to modify their existing cars. You are, however, currently free to add as you wish within whatever your personal limits are on cost and added frontal area.


Adding Chassis Stiffness:

The issue we will have to grapple with is not whether or not to allow additional stiffness via the new allowances, since the best methods of adding intrusion protection will always entail some sort of stiffness increase, but rather just how to keep it (allowed fastening methods) in check so that we do not get into a quickly escalating spiral that obsoletes the current car inventory every 2-3 years. If we had the sort of Pro series where everyone replaced their chassis every year, it wouldn't be such a problem, but with the current economic climate couple with the overall state of the Club (poor), we need to be very careful to make sure that the performance progression is gradual so that the car you buy today has a decent chance of still being competitive in 3 years time.

Lots to think about over the next few months!

[jimh3063]

Daryl:
Is there an easy way to mount intrusion panels between the outer bodywork and the tube frame of the cockpit that won't lessen the strength of the panel and be legal? I don't know enough about composites to know if what I was proposing would hurt the integrity of the panel. I'd also be curious about your suggestions to accomplish my goal outside of what I mentioned.

Just kidding about the viagra.

Jimmy

[jimh3063]

Richard:
Would what Dennis proposed be legal if some kind of bushing or insulator was in the mount such that it allowed some flex. Is there is specific amount of rigidity that is the threshold for being illegal?

Jimmy

Adding Chassis Stiffness:

The issue we will have to grapple with is not whether or not to allow additional stiffness via the new allowances, since the best methods of adding intrusion protection will always entail some sort of stiffness increase, but rather just how to keep it (allowed fastening methods) in check so that we do not get into a quickly escalating spiral that obsoletes the current car inventory every 2-3 years. If we had the sort of Pro series where everyone replaced their chassis every year, it wouldn't be such a problem, but with the current economic climate couple with the overall state of the Club (poor), we need to be very careful to make sure that the performance progression is gradual so that the car you buy today has a decent chance of still being competitive in 3 years time.

[jimh3063]

Richard:
In the accident I mentioned earlier, I took of 3 of the 4 corners off the car. I had a halfshaft buzz by my face. If it were a foot lower when it went by it would have went in around my upper rib cage area through the bodywork. I pirouetted into the wall doing around 120. I'm thinking it would have been like playing roulette, if the shaft would have hit the extra tubing or not. Am I missing something in saying the extra tubing would add rigidity and may or may not have stopped the halfshaft?

Jimmy

[R. Pare]

Jim:

The threshold really is not something that anyone could easily put a number to, nor would there be a desire to do so. What the concern instead is how to limit the ability to use the panels as a major stiffening/strengthening member - these are supposed to be tube frame chassis after all, not hybrid semi-monocoques. Designers will always strive to utilize the panels to their fullest, so the challenge is to come up with a fastening limit that is hard to get around.

On the halfshaft - yes, additional tubes would help increase the chassis stiffness, but they are lousy anti-penetration devices because of their small face - the chances are rather small that something like a halfshaft is going to hit a tube and not all that empty space in between. Weitzenhof got damned lucky when the halfshaft that penetrated the keval panels hit the tube and bounced back out.

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl:
Is there an easy way to mount intrusion panels between the outer bodywork and the tube frame of the cockpit that won't lessen the strength of the panel and be legal? I don't know enough about composites to know if what I was proposing would hurt the integrity of the panel. I'd also be curious about your suggestions to accomplish my goal outside of what I mentioned.

Just kidding about the viagra.

Jimmy

Jimmy,

Asking the wrong person. I have very little knowledge about composites. I do know that the panels in my last FF and FV both acted as panels to contain my BeadSeat. Those panels were attached to the frame rails with cherrymax rivets 6" on center.

No worries about the viagra comment. I'm thicker than that

[jimh3063]

Daryl:
Sorry I got my names confused. I meant to direct my question to Darrin Tweeter.

Jimmy

[Alan R Guibord]

I have been reading this thread and would like to offer a couple of comments

- I was the victim of a rather hard side impact. I did walk/crawl away, but, probably need a hip replacement in the near future as a reault of the frame protruding into me. After that experience, I would welcome improvements that would give us a safer barrier. Putting anti-intrusion bars on suspension was a hugh leap forward. We now should look at cockpit safety.

- I would take exception with the coment that too much improvement might hurt club racing. Safety is an issue that should not take years to implement when there are many options available today, IMHO.

Al Guibord, Sr

[jimh3063]

Richard:
------------------
On the halfshaft - yes, additional tubes would help increase the chassis stiffness, but they are lousy anti-penetration devices because of their small face - the chances are rather small that something like a halfshaft is going to hit a tube and not all that empty space in between. Weitzenhof got damned lucky when the halfshaft that penetrated the keval panels hit the tube and bounced back out.
------------------

I agree with you about the tubes. Not gonna help with the issue I had. It scared the **** out of me when I actually figured what that rod that flew by my face actually was. I don't know about what happened to Dave but I would agree that if the halfshaft hit the tube, it was his lucky day.

Darren, not Daryl, any idea on the mounting of a panel?

Richard, how come it's legal to stiffen the car with tubes. If your end result is chassis stiffness, why isn't there a limit on tubing? I guess as a newbie to all these rules it doesn't seem to make sense. Stiff is stiff (no reference to the viagra comment earlier).

Jimmy

[Daryl DeArman]

The additional tubing doesn't have to be round.

There isn't a minimum wall thickness of the tubing.

No requirement for the tubing to be of a uniform wall thickness.

No maximum radius on the tubing either.

[R. Pare]

Richard, how come it's legal to stiffen the car with tubes. If your end result is chassis stiffness, why isn't there a limit on tubing? I guess as a newbie to all these rules it doesn't seem to make sense. Stiff is stiff (no reference to the viagra comment earlier).

Jimmy

Since the basic concept of the class is that the chassis is to be a tube frame, adding more tube over and above that of the manufacturer is perfectly within the class structure. There will be a natural limit as to how many tubes you will want to use if you want to stay at or near the minimum weight.

Once you start allowing hybrid chassis, there will be almost no limit as to the stiffness increases without running over the minimum weight. There is also the consideration of up-front costing to those few people who still would like to build their own cars, or would like to get into the business. If it takes a million dollar composites shop as part of the initial investiture, you will see very few new builders come along.

[jimh3063]

Al, I totally agree on time it takes and the process that it requires for any rule that is safety related. It's treated no different that any other rule. I've got quite and education on the rules as of late. Safety should be first and be fast tracked. Like Richard said, the additional tubes would stiffen the car and not really help with the intrusion protection of small objects. Maybe the panels are the way to go. Even if the add a little stiffness (maybe as much as the tubes do if that can be measured somehow) I hate to say this but, people will be all over this when someone really gets hurt. Sucks that it's the way things are but it probably is.

[jimh3063]

Richard, in the last 10 years how many new builders of FC's have come along with the rules as they are. I would also guess the building of composite parts would be outsourced to someone who can do it right and in mass cheaper than doing it themselves. I doubt this fact is scaring anyone off. The fact that is VERY hard to make a living selling race cars may be more of a deal killer. Do you really think that allowing hybrid cars will kill the class. I think not allowing new designs that are not 20 years old will kill the class far quicker. I think this is a place where we can agree to disagree. Can someone put up the numbers for FC on a 10 year scale per region?

Is there an easy way to only allow the cockpit portion of the car to be hybrid?
I hate to sound self serving but that's the part I care about. That could be the place where you are allowed to put more tubing or composite material. Pick your poison?

Jimmy

[jimh3063]

So I reread the days events on this thread.
Here is my summary. Please comment (I'm sure you will).

1) You can't add composite panels to the cockpit area because they would stiffen the car up and make our current cars obsolete.

2) Just add more tubes in your cars cockpit area to make it safe. This is a tube frame class. Adding tubes will stiffen your car but not make the other cars obsolete because adding stiffness with tubes is different than stiffness with composite panels to your cockpit area?

3) Adding more tubes will really not make you much safer because objects can go between the tubes.

4) Safety is less important than rigidity in our class.

5) Some Race car manufacturer will steer clear of making FC's if we have composite cockpit panels because they have never heard of outsourcing to a company that can build the same part cheaper and better because it's their primary focus.

6) Just plain old confusing to me
The Court is unable to give you a definitive answer on how carbon fiber panels may be used. (Thanks Bill Clinton for your contribution).
so much for rule clarification.

7) All I need to do to get rich is make race cars.

There were a few more that threw me for a loop but I'm tired and want to head home.

I used to think I was a pretty sharp cookie. Me with a EE from a pretty decent school.
I'm the owner of a very successful Systems Integration company. My education and running/ owning a successful business for 15 years didn't prepare me for this type of logic.

I am going to ask Northeastern for a refund.

Jimmy

[Hardingfv32]

As was stated before, the customers dictate how safe the manufacture's make their cars. Everyone has the right to assign the priority they want to the issue of safety. If safety is such a high priority with you then do something about it. There are plenty of legal things you can do to damage you aero and add weight that will make you as safe as you want. Can't sacrifice performance? Exactly what are your priorities when it comes to racing then?

The membership and insurance companies seem happy with the level of safety provide by the SCCA.

Brian

[jimh3063]

Brian:
I thought fastening kevlar panels to the external part of the cockpit tube frame in between the tubes and bodywork was a decent compromise. There was a different material mentioned earlier that may be the best material. It's safer, won't screw with my aero and not add a lot of weight.

I just need to figure out how to fasten them so that they stay put in an accident but not add rigidity. I'm sure that solution will be forthcoming.

As far as the SCCA goes. I can't take that comment too seriously.

I've seen stuff pass inspection that Stevie Wonder would catch. I've seen people break the rules and get away with it because they're buddy is a scrutineer.
If I make my safety some other persons problem. That's a problem.

I love racing. I'm sure the problem I'm trying to solve has a solution. I just need to find it.


Jimmy

[HazelNut]

I'm with Hazelnut when he states racing is more fun than golf. I just have never heard of anyone getting t-boned in golf.

you've obviously never played golf with me!

if you have a pair of carts, really long drivers, and a nice flat open fairway, you can have some fantasic jousting matches on a golf course.

[jimh3063]

Does Hazelnut = Puder?

[Daryl DeArman]

So I reread the days events on this thread.
Here is my summary. Please comment (I'm sure you will).

1) You can't add composite panels to the cockpit area because they would stiffen the car up and make our current cars obsolete.

2) Just add more tubes in your cars cockpit area to make it safe. This is a tube frame class. Adding tubes will stiffen your car but not make the other cars obsolete because adding stiffness with tubes is different than stiffness with composite panels to your cockpit area?

3) Adding more tubes will really not make you much safer because objects can go between the tubes.

4) Safety is less important than rigidity in our class.

5) Some Race car manufacturer will steer clear of making FC's if we have composite cockpit panels because they have never heard of outsourcing to a company that can build the same part cheaper and better because it's their primary focus.

6) Just plain old confusing to me
The Court is unable to give you a definitive answer on how carbon fiber panels may be used. (Thanks Bill Clinton for your contribution).
so much for rule clarification.

7) All I need to do to get rich is make race cars.

There were a few more that threw me for a loop but I'm tired and want to head home.

Now you get it.

[HazelNut]

I have been reading this thread and would like to offer a couple of comments

- I was the victim of a rather hard side impact. I did walk/crawl away, but, probably need a hip replacement in the near future as a reault of the frame protruding into me. After that experience, I would welcome improvements that would give us a safer barrier. Putting anti-intrusion bars on suspension was a hugh leap forward. We now should look at cockpit safety.

- I would take exception with the coment that too much improvement might hurt club racing. Safety is an issue that should not take years to implement when there are many options available today, IMHO.

Al Guibord, Sr

I drove passed your wreckage under caution a few times while they cleaned it up. I'm still amazed you walked away from that. In fact your car looked worse than the wreckage from the one fatality I've seen first hand (sports racer at LRP with EMRA, in 06? maybe 07?).