SCCA roll bar rules

Rick -

I don't think anyone here has any problem at all with asking for or getting an "alternate cage design rule" with loadbearing strength specs added back into Prod.

Where you've gotten opposition from me and others is with respect to attacking the current GCR/PCS cage design rule as inadequate or unsafe.

You don't need to attack the current spec in order to advocate for an alternate rule, just cite the precedent of the other classes having it.

If you do insist on attacking the current spec, I think you risk costing your fellow Prod racers a LOT of money if the result turned out to be a "beefier" standard spec. And I don't think it makes it a bit likelier to get an alt design rule, which I think is your real goal.

Looking at it another way, a full frontal "negative" attack will most likely just get a defensive pushback but could at worst could be a train wreck if the result is a revision of the rule that obsoletes our existing cages. A positive approach stands more chance of success (IMO) and had little to no risk of costing me and others big bucks.

Sincerely,

Al Seim
HP VW Scirocco
 
I sent a letter requesting optional lower driver side bar in conjunction with a petty bar, in any car with a low front hoop.
The CRB sent back something requesting pics and GCR pages . I thought the request was pretty clear and could not make it any more clear and thus dropped it.
Rick, send in a nice clear request without pissing and moaning. or as Al stated outdating the current cages.
 
Al

All very good points and I have thought about them at some length while writing the posts. I recognize that I may be looking at this with too much historical perspective. This all started because the racers at the time were told that most of our roll cages were unsafe and we [ the members of the CRB] have a better one for you all to build. So that has been a source of annoyance since it has not been true from the start. But the problem with your advise is that the SCCA design with the mandated forward side bars is unsafe and it is the very reason why other types of designs should be available to be used. These bars hurt drivers in accidents, I know some of these drivers and I am familiar with the circumstances of the accidents ,so I personally know this is true. And If a driver gets hurt , like maybe me, SCCA inc. and a lot of directors , past and present are going to end up in court trying to explain why they allowed it to happen.I don't think SCCA wants to reinstate the old alternative cage rule for Prod cars, organization do not like to admit to mistakes ,so I think they need a good reason to make the change. And me just asking isn't going to do it. I don't think being afraid of what SCCA might do to you and ignoring the real issue serves any ones best interests.
 
Again, they didn't use FEA. The made the cage bolted it to a table and then shoved against it with a ram. A stupid test at best, but to hold on to the hopes that it was something other than what it was isn't bright.

James -r
 
James,

Whatever the test, whoever did the test, cage bolted to whatever, hit by a ram or not................just please explain why SCCA mandated a design that failed by a company they commissioned. No other deflections of the simple question????

Bill
 
James,

In the Altair report on the 2nd page , 5th line down it states 'Build a finite element model of a roll cage". In the last 2 lines on the same page it states " Four load cases were run in DYNA". DYNA is an general-purpose multiphysics simulation software package Used for analysis such as this. When doing EFI the attachment points are always seen to be unyielding so the analysis is not compromised and the results reflects the integrity of the model cage and not the structure it is attached to.

I really do understand this burning desire you have, that clearly is affecting your powers of reason, to believe that SCCA would ever intentionally mandate a cage that might be substandard. I have seen this affliction before in the eyes of Brian Holtz, George Bovis, Chuck Shapiro and others. They wanted to not believe that their cage failed the tests so badly that they were willing to lie about it.

You can not be this uninformed so I am going to believe you are just having some fun because you disagree with me,, Right?
 
I have summited a CRB request that a roll cage exception clause be added to the production car cage rules, request #17242.It reads ": The current GCR has a role cage exception for formula and sports cars listed below in the attachment, I hope it made it on the request. I think SCCA production racers should have access to such a rule to use in the design of their cars roll cages also. There for I request the this Exception should be included in the prodcar roll cage rules in the GCR" If you agree with this and would like to see it in the rule book, contact the CRB and you BOD member. The following is the wording in the GCR now for the other 2 class's. This is what was in the GCR in years past for the prod-cars until it was removed in the 1990s
thank you

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top