SCCA roll bar rules

James Rogerson":3vql102i said:
Where is a copy of this report? Please produce it.

James -r
Click to expand...


Any of you that were at the 2006 runoffs prod tent meeting would have witnessed the results of the report, When Craig Taylor, then on the comp board told everyone that he had seen the report, and indeed the SCCA design had failed the engineering test.


A far as producing the report, good luck with that shit, they'll never show it to you. Craig's verbal conformation was as good as we got. It wouldn't shock me, after Craig spilled the beans, that they shredded it, I would if I were them.

As far as the SCCA having to give over a big ass settlement on roll cages safety, in crash where a driver died, it's already happen in Trans Am.

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/the ... ite-lethal
 
Unsure of origin of copy I received. Always suspected past Director sympathetic to the cause. Sure looks like real deal. Lots of technical terms and explanation, on ALTAIR letterhead.

Ricks quotation directly from report.

If someone can guide me thru process of scanning pages and posting here, and if I can find my copy, I'll try posting. Multiple pages.

RJS
 
RJS,
Simply scan the files and save them as a .pdf.
Then press the reply button on the forum and look below the text box- there is a place where you can upload attachments. Max file size is 2MB, but that should be plenty for a couple pages.

If you encounter issues doing that, you can email the scan to me in whatever format you have and I will convert the file or host it on my own site and post the link. matt_at_mattblehm_dot_com
 
Maybe I'm crazy, but am I the only one who sees a potential train wreck here?

If SCCAs risk management people have nixed the idea of "custom design to load standard x" as I'm guessing they have, and if you manage to shame or scare SCCA into accepting the (erroneous in my opinion) idea that the standard design is too weak, then what do you think might happen? My guess would be a beefed up standard design that instantly grounds most of the open Prod cars. And not done maliciously or as punishment, just as a reaction to a perceived danger.

I'd hate to see that happen but I'd hate it more if I was racing an open Prod car!

By all means lobby for an alternative design that suits your needs and desires. But I see nothing but unintended bad consequences coming from a frontal attack on the "standard" design.

(BTW, if I've got this wrong and the rumored analysis is of an old design that isn't currently the PCS standard design and isn't used anymore, then what I've said above is irrelevant)

Al
 
It's not related to this issue, but the larger safety issue I see is GT1.

Same driveline as Sprint Cup (900+ HP). Less weight.

FAR FAR FAR less safety requirements.

And at Daytona, I'd bet they break 200 mph. And they will be compelled to draft one another at those speeds.

No roof flaps, flat bottoms, wings (backward they create lift), WAY less cage and seat than Sprint Cup, no side intrusion specs, etc.

THAT's the ticking time bomb IMHO.

-Kyle
 
disquek":1bwx9vcj said:
It's not related to this issue, but the larger safety issue I see is GT1.

Same driveline as Sprint Cup (900+ HP). Less weight.

FAR FAR FAR less safety requirements.

And at Daytona, I'd bet they break 200 mph. And they will be compelled to draft one another at those speeds.

No roof flaps, flat bottoms, wings (backward they create lift), WAY less cage and seat than Sprint Cup, no side intrusion specs, etc.

THAT's the ticking time bomb IMHO.

-Kyle
Click to expand...

...Better yet is putting those cars on track at the same time as a Miata. COTA Majors stuck STU in with GT1. closing speeds on the back straight were upwards of 70mph.
 
Al Seim":2h8k9ggp said:
Maybe I'm crazy, but am I the only one who sees a potential train wreck here?

If SCCAs risk management people have nixed the idea of "custom design to load standard x" as I'm guessing they have, and if you manage to shame or scare SCCA into accepting the (erroneous in my opinion) idea that the standard design is too weak, then what do you think might happen? My guess would be a beefed up standard design that instantly grounds most of the open Prod cars. And not done maliciously or as punishment, just as a reaction to a perceived danger.

I'd hate to see that happen but I'd hate it more if I was racing an open Prod car!

By all means lobby for an alternative design that suits your needs and desires. But I see nothing but unintended bad consequences coming from a frontal attack on the "standard" design.

(BTW, if I've got this wrong and the rumored analysis is of an old design that isn't currently the PCS standard design and isn't used anymore, then what I've said above is irrelevant) Al
Click to expand...

What Al said or....expensive homologation of every individual cage we might build or expensive mandate for FIA cages that many international racers already deal with. While there might be a lot of personal satisfaction in exposing this mess I really think this is a can of worms you would ultimately regret opening. Lastly I would hate to see one of my fellow racers in trouble. If you can legally post a copy fine, but please be careful, and be sure.
 
disquek":sfhu9nmf said:
It's not related to this issue, but the larger safety issue I see is GT1.

Same driveline as Sprint Cup (900+ HP). Less weight.

FAR FAR FAR less safety requirements.

And at Daytona, I'd bet they break 200 mph. And they will be compelled to draft one another at those speeds.

No roof flaps, flat bottoms, wings (backward they create lift), WAY less cage and seat than Sprint Cup, no side intrusion specs, etc.

THAT's the ticking time bomb IMHO.

-Kyle
Click to expand...

Excellent point. But they don't really run in tight groups. Seems like they are all alone after 1 lap, that could Really drop the odds.

I think other classes scare me more with so much less cabin and side impact. But 200 mph sure seems like it would fly. Plate'em?
 
S. Henry":3rtkcrr1 said:
But 200 mph sure seems like it would fly. Plate'em?
Click to expand...

RESTRICTOR PLATE?! 88-o DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THAT WILL COST ME?! :( YOU KILLED MY CLASS! :boohoo: I QUIT! :evil:
 
As the owner and driver of a car with a "gold seal" cage, any talk about revisiting the cage rules makes me very very nervous. I cannot speak to the specific type of cage Rick is talking about, but in my car I am comfortable with the location of the DS bar attaching the tops of the front and rear hoops. If it was, the fix as I see it would be a halo seat. I was a lot more likely to bash my head against the high bar in my old SRX7 than I am in the Sprite.

Sometimes, I do think I would prefer a full cage for safety. Anyone remember the RX7 ending up on top of Kevin's Caterham at the first Topeka runoffs?
 
At issue is the language of the testing process. Was it a test to find stress failure? If so, failure is somewhat guaranteed. If that is the case, failure can still be compliant within a described criteria. Single hoops upside down in gravel can easily cause compression fracture of drivers spine. RA turn 12 in a FF while wearing a HANS to be exact.

RJ send me a copy either by electronic means or post. If you want contact me directly and I'll give you my UPS account information.

You can get my email and mailing information at <www.msrhouston.com>

James -r
 
This has always been a been a point of contention with Rick since they outlawed his preferred style of main hoop, he has design that passed a engineering test, and the SCCA has one that failed, but Rick is not allowed and their's is, that's just a wee bit FUed, and has always been, and that's why you still hear Rick talking about it. I think Rick's point has always been why mandate one design, if I can do it better, not that he wanted his design required, just allowed, as it should always been.

Just like the required forward "entrapment bars" everybody bought into that hook, line and sinker, whoever's idea that was in the SCCA is GD idiot, their's your potential train wreck right there. That was the first thing I removed from my vintage open race car.

RJ you should send a copy of that to Rick, if he doesn't already have one, that way he could put it on his website, or somewhere permanent and it will linked to the internet forever, for everyone to see.

I always thought the cage deal was a way to weed out open cars, and it worked pretty well, but of course back then no one envisioned the next wave of open cars, like the Miatas, and S2000s, RX7s for example.

Have any of you ever noticed that the vintage groups are much less about mandating a given roll cage design, I have to believe this is their way of excluding themselves from the liability of a mandated design.
 
To Haps point above, one vintage sanctioning body that does not mandate a cage design does require a notarized liability release waiver. While we are on the subject of death and destruction, everyone please check your life insurance policy in that it allows for amateur racing. That would really PO a surviving spouse.
EZ
 
Rick already has a copy, and quoted from it in his first post.

Found my copy prepared for Sven Pruett dated March 24,1997. No "Propriety Property" or "Top Secret" stamps apparent. Not a complete report as text refers to Figures 1 thru 19, but only 4 figures included. Clearly describes failure modes below GCR target loads. Several recommendations made: unsure if these were ever incorporated into GCR specs.

Objectives of project:

"Build a finite element model of a roll cage. The dimensions and specifications of the cage represent a GT style cage for a Honda CRX size / style vehicle. The cage was designed to be in compliance with the current General Competition Rules (GCR)."

Will scan in next few days and e-mail on request.

RJS
 
I have not checked the specifics of a 1997 vs a 2014 GCR closed car cage spec but will assume for the moment that they are similar. Assuming so:

At core here then is an attempt to convince SCCA that the current closed car roll cage spec is inadequate and dangerous. What the heck do you guys think you are going to accomplish???

Rick's letter to Ms Noble is essentially saying that the present closed car roll cage design is inadequate (since this is apparently the cage in the report) and that he will personally assist anyone suing SCCA on that basis, ending with the statement that he is giving legal notice.

If she/SCCA decided to take this seriously and act on it - what would be the outcome? I can't think of anything other than to eliminate Prod or revise the roll cage spec to mandate something stronger. Given the format of the rule, this would likely force the majority of Prod cars to scrap or heavily revise their cages. Which is precisely what Prod does not need at this point.

I see precisely 0% chance that the response would be "OK Rick you were right, please build your cage the way you want" - largely because that in no way addresses the danger cited in the letter.

So this whole thing is about as productive - and about as dangerous - as attempting to prove Snell helmets or FIA fuel cells to be "inadequate". You'd likely be ignored, but if you weren't you'd cost a lot of people a lot of money.
 
Al,

What you are predicting might happen but your analogy is ridiculous , no one is claiming nor is there any evidences Snell helmets or FIA fuel cells are "inadequate". And even it there were SCCA has nothing to do with it and there for would not be liable for it. The cage rule is all SCCA , they designed it , they tried to cover up the fact it failed its own tests and they continue to ignore the potential legal problem it will cause along with the disregard for the safety of its drivers, Disagree with me if you want but keep it logical and not these absurd comparisons. SCCA might do some disagreeable things to the prod cars , they have been doing it for 20 years or they might do nothing, But then again they might do the right thing and reinstate the alt roll bar rule for prod cars, I think it is worth trying for.

The following is copied from the current GCR.

Exceptions for Formula Cars and Sports Racing cars
Any roll hoop design which does not comply with the specifications
in 9.4.5, will only be considered if it is accompanied by engineering
specifications signed by a registered engineer stating that the
design meets the stress loading requirements below. No alternate
roll hoop will be considered unless it contains a main hoop having
a minimum tubing size of 1.375” x .080” wall thickness. The roll
bar must be capable of withstanding the following stress loading
applied simultaneously to the top of the roll bar: 1.5 (X) laterally,
5.5 (X) longitudinally in both the fore and aft directions, and 7.5 (X)
vertically, where (X) = the minimum weight of the car.

The ONLY reason this option was removed from the prod car rules was the then CRB/BOD was embarrassed to have it in the GCR after the SCCA bar had failed so miserably That was all, it wasn't risk management, Pete Lyons had no hand in it.. It was embarrassment that cause the change. Why is it that SCCA allows Formula Cars and Sports Racing driver the option and not Prod drivers, are they more capable than prod drivers to make important decisions about their safety? Formula and Sports cars are involved in more deaths and injuries than prod cars yet they are allowed a alt. roll bar rule option and we are not. I would like to see that change.
 
I know cost is not relevant to the point at hand but I am curious. How much does it cost to purchase a custom engineering analysis, specifications, and sign off (which presumably would include a "liability margin") Is it a $100, a $1000, or ? Anybody actually had it done recently?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top