FIA Safety Superiority? Not so fast....

Mopar 151w2
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 9:08 pm
AntiSpam: No

Re: FIA Safety Superiority? Not so fast....

Post by Mopar 151w2 »

In the US, a plethora of professional series and extensive media coverage yeild a robust data stream. Video analysys can extract new data from well-documented crash, and comparison with crash data recorders (developed for high- value freight shipments) has yeilded new insights as well.
And, as I said before, safety in the US is advanced by real racers - like Maynard Troyer - yes, the same guy who started Troyer Engineering to build Modifieds to a standard design - who designed cars as if he were going to race them himself. Here, in the days long before the chassis business, he "pressure tests" a rollcage at Daytona - 16 rotations worth!
Mopar 151w2
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 9:08 pm
AntiSpam: No

Re: FIA Safety Superiority? Not so fast....

Post by Mopar 151w2 »

"Homogolated" roll cages (approved design, serialised, documented by approved supplier) are not just an FIA rally thing (other than the questionable wall thickness part). The venerable Howe LMS chassis center section/rollcage had been available in a "certified", tagged version for 20+ years. If you ran with GT America (SCCA regional class), or the ASA, you ran a Howe cage and chassis center - even if Port City or Hanley built the rest of the car.The latest "road race"/GT2/TA2/V8 Thundercar "Europe" chassis:Image Howe seems to have moved away from the taggging and certification program with the introduction of the TA2 car - but NASCAR inspects and approves all chassis in the 5th (aka COT) and 6th designs for Cup post-welding, before assembly. (They're NOT "DOM", either)

The idea that "we'll never see" top division NASCAR parts and peices is truly a crock, by the way. Many of the COT and gen.6 chassis are built by Steve Leavitt Racing in Mooresville, NC - several of us buy parts from his Dad, Gardiner Leavitt (Kezar Falls, ME, & every flea market in NE), as well as Jeff Spraker Racing. When it comes to Modified stuff, fahgeddaboutit!
User avatar
STI NICK
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:33 pm
AntiSpam: No
Location: Colchester VT
Contact:

Re: FIA Safety Superiority? Not so fast....

Post by STI NICK »

Why dont you put half the energy you spend complaining about the DOM tubing rule and put it into finding a better way to word it or build on it. There is some crap metal out there, and very few people have your knowledge of those types of metals. You have even admitted to this. So to say someone can using tubing that is magnetic is stupid and not very responsible without them having your level of knowledge in my opinion. And to allow it just so there can be a small chance of a few certain cars that have never run or maybe have run once a hundred years ago can have a chance to run again doesnt seem responsible. But for someone like you who has the time to research all these things to complain about could probably find a way to word it so these cars could run. the Majority of the crowd of hillclimbers that want to build a car proabably dont know about the hundreds of different types of steal out there. They look at costs. And if you dont know about it your cant research it, and not every one has the time to be an expert in everything or have the time to read in great detail of all the different types of metals that are out there. History has proven this. I am sure you have seen this throughout history of all the different types of cages that have been rejected.

DOM tubing is popular, well known, and widely accepted, proven, and cost effective. It also doesnt really have any of those "if you bend it this way its ok to use" clauses. So someone more grassroots with a cheap car, a welder and a little bit of cage design research, and is good with angles can build a cage. Homogolated cages may not be perfect either (no cage is perfect), but they are tested at least. Its a good place to start. I'm pretty sure it could probably be built upon to include some or all of the chassis' you have talked about, so why dont you find a way to make it work since you are spending so much time on this topic anyway. If you cant then maybe they arent as safe as you think they are. At one time Aluminum cages were used in some Rally cars and those arent allowed now. So apparently times can change.
Nick
User avatar
Rabbit Farmer
Posts: 2260
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 11:37 pm
AntiSpam: No
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: FIA Safety Superiority? Not so fast....

Post by Rabbit Farmer »

Recently, John did provide an idea of how this should be written to the three clubs. Unsure if it has been shared with SCCNH or KSCC membership; I was going to bring this up at the next SCCV meeting.

Steve
Go Fast VW & Audi parts at FastAddiction.com
Mopar 151w2
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 9:08 pm
AntiSpam: No

Re: FIA Safety Superiority? Not so fast....

Post by Mopar 151w2 »

Hey, Nick - you know what?
You're WRONG. About my motivations, about the metal specification, and anytning else you said . Now, you seem like a reasonable guy most of the time - How is it that you can end up so far out on a limb on issues like this? It turns out that there is an answer, of sorts - Some of which is brought to us by our LOLKatz pal "Grumpy Cat", who's motto is "There's 2 kinds of people in the world - I don't like 'em!"
So, coming soon to this forum, a feature titled "Egalatarian vs. Authouratarian", where you, FIA fanbois, will be copiously used as an example.
Shoot off your mouth, act without respect for others - it's about as nice as I'm gonna get.
User avatar
STI NICK
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:33 pm
AntiSpam: No
Location: Colchester VT
Contact:

Re: FIA Safety Superiority? Not so fast....

Post by STI NICK »

Well John you are entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't sound like you want to discuss much of anything. Just call people names and act like an angry kid. I do this for fun not to deal with miserable people which you seem to be heading in that direction. Have a great day arguing with yourself on this one.
Nick
Mopar 151w2
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 9:08 pm
AntiSpam: No

Re: FIA Safety Superiority? Not so fast....

Post by Mopar 151w2 »

Wrong AGAIN. Don't trouble your beautiful mind with this, sport. Grown-ups are working on a temporary solution, and we will be talking about some detail clarification over the summer. If you have an interest in how you, in particular, get to be a poster child, you could consicer that you are, in your last missive, attempting to prove your synthesis of the opinions of others as superior to ASTM specifications. Generally, when I have heard " Why, it means whatever I say it means - nothing more, and nothing less!" , it meant a career was about to take a serious nosedive.
User avatar
STI NICK
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:33 pm
AntiSpam: No
Location: Colchester VT
Contact:

Re: FIA Safety Superiority? Not so fast....

Post by STI NICK »

John not sure why you are so mad at me about this. Not like I am saying your wrong. If your still upset about the meeting 2 years ago I would say let the past be. I didn't write the current rule. There were plenty of people in the room that voted for it though. I just said above it should be built upon or changed all together. I do support it though. I think recommending a tubing type is a better way to go to help people who are not experienced in cage building but want to do it themselves. There are lots of racing organizations that do that. I have no feelings towards FIA or rally rules. How is it the world is wrong and John is right? Thats the only question I have. There is some middle ground in there somewhere cause I am sure both sides arent 100% correct.

Have a great day, and I look forward to seeing your suggestions seeing how we all have to vote on it.
Nick
User avatar
3rdgendennis
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: FIA Safety Superiority? Not so fast....

Post by 3rdgendennis »

I don't particularly want to get involved in any bickering, but heres $0.02:
I also don't want to be responsible for deciding what is okay and what isn't, nor make any extra work for someone else who doesn't want it, but I'm thinking maybe the best way to handle the situation is to have people who want to run simply get the cage material approved by a technical inspector. I ran the Baja SAE competition last weekend in El Paso. In order to get through tech inspection, teams are required to prove where they got the cage material, have documentation of its material properties, and have done calculations ahead of time to prove the strength of the chosen material matches or exceeds a minimum strength requirement. While I feel that is a little excessive for 500# buggies running 10HP Briggs engines, the concept has merit. It isn't very difficult to calculate the strength of whatever material one decides to build the cage out of. Maybe the club should come up with a minimum strength requirement (SAE uses a minimum bend stiffness criteria) and go from there.
It would be difficult to get proof of material properties for a cage built 20 years ago, so that would still need to be addressed, but this could be a good way to make sure new cages are "safe enough"
The youngest David Dennis
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space"
Dennis Motorsports
Mopar 151w2
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 9:08 pm
AntiSpam: No

Re: FIA Safety Superiority? Not so fast....

Post by Mopar 151w2 »

DD3 - A lovely idea in a perfect world, a huge f%&*# can of worms in real life. Most of the problem I had with the DOM only spec have to do with how we accept currently existing chassis, or new chassis without a nonexistent level of documentation. This issue is of little concern to the "proponents" of the DOM only spec., near as i can tell - they're usually not too coherent by that stage of the argument. (A few certain cars? Phuleeze...)

Industry has a means for dealing with standards like this - Basically, each lot of "certified" material is tracked from the mill to the finished product, with strict segregation and storage requirements - as in kept seperate by lot/heat #, under lock & key, and tracked from the individual lot # to the individual finished product. The expense is appaling, and it gets cheated on regularly - just google up an article on fake aircraft parts.
Locked