2015 Rules Submission and Discussion

[Kiwi]

If anyone is looking for it (I was), it's here:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1229

Jamie

[Mopar 151w2]

OK, it's all been up for a few days - and not a peep? A LOT of research and time went into this year's proposal - and the tech comittee took a lot of pains to seek input, and keep the rules non-intimidating and reasonable. I'll be happy to explain anything in the cage/tubing rule, or what each detail of change had for an intended purpose.

"For every question, there is almost always a clear and simple answer. And it is generally wrong!" H.L. Mencken

The thing is, shameless lying and ignorance works surprisingly well as a debate tactic. It’s hard to argue with someone who not only has signaled that he doesn’t care what the truth is but is downright proud of how little he actually knows. Such a person is not amenable to being educated. Once the pretense of really caring one way or another about what is right and what is wrong has been abandoned, all avenue of discourse is shut down. from an article in Salon

[jkale]

The thing is, shameless lying and ignorance works surprisingly well as a debate tactic. It’s hard to argue with someone who not only has signaled that he doesn’t care what the truth is but is downright proud of how little he actually knows. Such a person is not amenable to being educated. Once the pretense of really caring one way or another about what is right and what is wrong has been abandoned, all avenue of discourse is shut down. from an article in Salon

John, just because there is not discussion on the forum does not mean the topics are not being discussed.

I also think that what I have left in quotes above does the opposite of encourage people to speak up and ask questions about what you say you are willing to help them understand. Just a thought.

[Mopar 151w2]

Just a thought - if some folks continue to rely on uninformed and unprofessional sources for information, they're likely to find out they've been punked! A lot of reseach went into this year's proposal, by several people - and our sources reach the top of the sport.
I've definitely had my eyes opened to what the factors are for selection of rollcage material. And I've had ample confirmation that stuff i've been saying for years is even more vital than I beleived it was. Further, I feel confident in saying that race car prep in partial imitation of rally cars is not the way to go, that there is some pretty serious misunderstanding of what is really important.
As I said, I'm willing to explain - and I'm willing to cite sources. But I can't do much with the willfully ignorant - never could.

[jkale]

Just a thought - if some folks continue to rely on uninformed and unprofessional sources for information, they're likely to find out they've been punked! A lot of reseach went into this year's proposal, by several people - and our sources reach the top of the sport.
I've definitely had my eyes opened to what the factors are for selection of rollcage material. And I've had ample confirmation that stuff i've been saying for years is even more vital than I beleived it was. Further, I feel confident in saying that race car prep in partial imitation of rally cars is not the way to go, that there is some pretty serious misunderstanding of what is really important.
As I said, I'm willing to explain - and I'm willing to cite sources. But I can't do much with the willfully ignorant - never could.

John, you quote professionalism, yet this is how you react to me stating you need to be a bit less confrontational to people with questions regarding the rule you are proposing. You should learn to be better at answering tough questions when it comes to something you are involved in.

That being said, I have a few questions for you:

What are the factors that have happened recently that have changed your mind regarding tubing selection... ? Please state specifics...

What exactly do you mean when you state that "partial imitation of rally cars is not the way to go"? Please state specifics... Because the FIA does a lot of r&d..

Please try to keep your answers simple and non-rambling...

[jkale]

I'll be happy to explain anything in the cage/tubing rule, or what each detail of change had for an intended purpose.

[Mopar 151w2]

Well, this is all somewhat complicated, which is why I quoted HL Mencken.
But to simplify as much as possible: The particular factor that has my attention is percentage of elongation, and it's relation to tensile strength.

The issue regarding FIA style cages can best be summed up by the phrase partial imitation To say any more would require "rambling" as you put it.

[Mopar 151w2]

OK - I have received requests to further "ramble", and perhaps explain my use of the word "punked". Fair enough. I will admit to getting a little cranky when someone tells me - or, more importantly, all of you - something I know to be false. So it goes, with our current "Mild steel DOM" rule. It's kind of a long story, has to start somewhere. In the early 60's, most stock car rollcages were made of black iron pipe. Sports car and Indy car drivers disdained cages as "junk", which messed up the looks of their sleek creations. IMCA, who sanctioned much of sprint car racing then, actually banned cages in the mid-60's. Their thought was to keep out "jalopy" based "supermodifieds", some of which were as fast as their purebred sprinters, but wer'nt as "classy". Driver deaths were normal, and frequent. Increasing press coverage of stock car racing brought manufacturers and major sponsors - like Firestone and Goodyear - to the sport. But, with more press, came a simple realisation - killing drivers was bad for business, and a waste of expensive talent. Ford, Chrysler, and the tire companies devoted serious engineering talent and money - sometimes channeled through "factory shops" like Holman & Moody, Ray Nichels, and later Petty Engineering, sometimes developed in-house (The first real fuel cell I saw said "Firestone" all over it), and sometimes by making them fashion statements. Early Nomex suits almost always had Goodyear or Firestone on the pocket, and were handed out to big winners and track champions by race tire distributors. With money, comes clout. Holman & Moody bought enough tubing to order the best available at the time, Ford engineers they could ask what that was, and what the best bending machine was. Ray Nichels could afford then-exotic "Heli-Arc" welders, so that Chrysler's unibody (aka monocoque) could be seam welded. European tube frames were usually gas welded, or "nickel-silver brazed" - but fitting the tubes for these processes is finicky, and the processes are labor-intensive. "Jalopies" became "Modifieds" or "Sportsmen", as NASCAR began to sanction short tracks, and unified rules from Maine to Florida. Sprint cars acquired roll cages, after several bloody seasons in USAC. "Cutdowns", "Skeeters", and supermodifieds outgrew some of their more lethal provenance and became full, tube-chassis racing cars - several were obsolete Indy "roadsters", repowered with fuel-injected V-8's. Roll cages in international racing were virtually unknown, until Ford brought them to Le Mans.
OK - by 1970 or so, the basic shape of the American racing "stock car" was established, at least under the skin. Tubing was ERW mild steel, typically arc welded, which limited the use of thin wall tubing. The big question after a spectacular wreck on a big track started to turn from "did he live?" to "Is there gonna be a fight?" If you look at video from a thread on this forum entitled "Why I like Troyer cars", You'll see a car from that era endure an amazing number of flips. Richard Petty drove several innovations, by spectacular crashes, a feedback loop with his "family-tight" fabricators, and a hotline to Chrysler engineering! Many Trans Am cars from this era were constructed by NASCAR based shops, like Bud Moore Engineering. Many of the innovations from oval racing began to filter into the sports car world from this influence, though regarded with disdain by "purists".
Some fabricators, seeking a lighter, stronger car, began to experiment with DOM chrome-moly "aircraft" tubing, as used in Indy, sprint and formula cars. Harry Hyde, who was known to exploit the rules a little, comissioned (from Nichels) a "Martinsville" car built from .035 4130 - the thinnest available. The body may have been a little thin... The result was a car that carried 700 pounds of ballast in the rear, at minimum legal weight, for optimum "forward bite". Savvy fabricators liked the increased stiffness that the redrawing process produced, wanted no part of chrome-moly's welding issues, and badgered their suppliers for material that was, at the time, listed as "hydraulic cylinder tubing". According to local Troyer expert/conniseur Rusty Ball, DOM tubing came to short-track racing in the mid - 80's "The first piece I ever had in my shop was in the new Troyer chassis I bought in '86" At about the same time, there were some catastrophic failures of chrome-moly tubing in sprint car racing, as tire and engine technology pushed speeds ever higher. Dick Tobias death at Flemington, Knoxville's (IA) string of tragedies and Van May's miraculous survival at Syracuse made the sprint car world much more safety conscious. More to come in part 2 - or "Talladega Changes Everything"

[jkale]

First, you offer your advice/help to anyone that has questions/concerns about your proposed rule and at the same time you interject these quotes that are nothing but an undertone that is questionable and just not needed from someone who is offering up their knowledge.. It will and does discourage individuals who are just trying to educate themselves so they can get ready to race.

Then, when I try to point this out to you, you just attempt to insult my knowledge and the manner at which most unibody chassis based cars are prepped to race. It seems to me like you are stuck in a paradigm that does not allow you to understand the benefits of racing something other than a modified.. Not really a big deal, unless you force those beliefs upon others..

You are not the only person who enjoys metallurgy and the science of materials John. It would be nice if you accepted the fact that there are people, who are younger than you, that deal with material science on a daily basis..They might have even attended some college courses on the subject..They are not idiots(most of them).. Like you think they are.. For example: you state 50,000psi as a tensile strength min. in your proposal. But then, you offer to use a500typeA as a material.. It does not meet that fairly low requirement! Im not sure if you just like the elongation it offers, but, it is not good practice to propose a tensile strength minimum, and then allow material that does not meet that exact specification.

John, there are many people who are grateful for you writing a new roll cage rule proposal(I am included). The old one needs to go.. And your proposal is decent. There are a few things that I think should change. It would be nice if we could have a reasonable conversation about that, with out too much insult…

[jkale]

Also, I do not think you should include any wording regarding schedule 40 pipe. It is too misleading. There should never be any "OK" given to pipe used as rollcage material.

John, you and I know, anyone with a car, made to the specs that you are making hidden exceptions for, are not a worry when it comes to dying and suing. So, I think you need to word your exceptions a bit differently..