prodracing.com

Unofficial SCCA Production Racing Forum
It is currently Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:02 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:08 am
Posts: 760
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Since many of you have converted your prod car from an IT car, here's another rule from the good ole section 9 that may have slipped your attention.

Scattershields. 9.3.40 Page #86.

And please don't try to convince me that the aluminum case of your sprite transmission will contain the flywheel when the bolts break because I've seen what happens in that case. At 8000 RPM, the flywheel will chew that case up into little pieces.

_________________
Jim Creighton
CARS Tour DoR
SEDiv SARRC Administrator
V8 Road Racing Series Administrator
Runoffs Line Chief Tech Prod cars


Last edited by FP Racer on Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:34 am
Posts: 2949
Location: Wauwatosa, WI
9.3.40. SCATTERSHIELDS/CHAIN GUARDS
The installation of scattershields or explosion-proof bell housings shall be required on all cars (except Spec
Miata, Touring and Improved Touring) where the failure of the clutch or flywheel could create a hazard to
the driver. Chain drive cars shall be fitted with a protective case/shield to retain the chain in case of failure.
Minimum material specifications are:
.125 inch SAE 4130 alloy steel
.250 inch mild steel plate
.250 inch aluminum alloy
NHRA or SFI approved flexible shields

_________________
Have Fun ; )

David Dewhurst
CenDiv Milwaukee Region
F Prod #14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:57 am
Posts: 108
[Devil's Advocate]What's the deciding standard for "where the failure of the clutch or flywheel could create a hazard to the driver"?

Sounds pretty subjective. Therefore, almost unenforceable (especially under appeal). First thing I'd ask is "let's see your engineering studies and/or historical statistics on that."[/Devil's Advocate]

Edit: and before we state the obvious, allow me to point out that the GCR did not get to almost 700 pages by using the standard of "well, that's just common sense".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:08 am
Posts: 760
Location: Atlanta, Ga
:evil: :D :lol:

Let me discuss this with your wife or your mother!

_________________
Jim Creighton
CARS Tour DoR
SEDiv SARRC Administrator
V8 Road Racing Series Administrator
Runoffs Line Chief Tech Prod cars


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:57 am
Posts: 108
FP Racer wrote:
Let me discuss this with your wife or your mother!

And the response would be..."what in the hell are you talking about?" :lol:

And let's take the [Devil's Advocate] one step further. As we are discussing this in front of the Court of Appeals, one of my questions to the Court will be, "in the opinion of the Chief of Tech - and it is an opinion - in what situation would 'the failure of the clutch or flywheel' absolutely not 'create a hazard to the driver'? Note the wording of the regulation explicitly states 'could', meaning the possibility is not 0%, and "hazard" is a binary condition (it exists or it doesn't). Is the Chief of Tech personally certifying that - in their opinion - there are situations/designs where the possiblity of failure cannot 'create a hazard', that its risk is 0%? If so, upon what engineering basis is this being made? If not, then why is that chief - and for that matter, the GCR - not requiring all entrants to install a scattershield?"

That all said...I get taking the opportunity to check out all "srs bzns" cars in excrutiating detail at our home Division's Runoffs. But I cautiously suggest that waiting until the premier event at the end of the season to colonscopy-check cars for rules minutae - and differences in interpretation, both to letter and to traditionally applied, a.k.a., "gotcha" - would be neither a customer-friendly nor popular avenue of action. That's what initial and annual inspections are for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:21 am
Posts: 1315
Jim, you may have a fair point here, but your timing is odd.

The SCCA has an opportunity to let people know what rules are most important - impound at Super Tours for certain, and Majors as well.

If SCCA feels that prod drivers are ignoring a specific rule, then let us know early and give us a chance to recover.

I get the idea of throwing out the cheaters, but in this case, the only danger is to the driver them selves- there's no performance advantage.

This definitely feels like a gotcha, and not a real intent to make racing more fair.

Maybe - compile a list of things you see in impound that are clear violations (like maybe this rule), and publish the list after runoffs?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 7:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2014 11:06 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Portland, OR
9.3.40 wrote:
shall be required on all cars () where the failure of the clutch or flywheel could create a hazard to the driver


So if the flywheel is not in line with the driver not required right? There are multiple passive possibilities that have to line up in this one.

_________________
Ian
FP CRX Si


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 7:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:08 am
Posts: 760
Location: Atlanta, Ga
You win. No more from me for a while.

These two things could be easily fixed prior to either your next annual or the Runoffs. Both of the items I've referred to are safety items and concern multi classes not just prod. Some of you converted your car from IT where some things are not required.

But, I understand. The Runoffs is in only 70 days.

As I've said here many times, if you don't like a rule, fix it. Don't blame me for the rules you write.

Uh oh, I just got a note that six NASCAR Cup cars just failed pre race tech inspection for Pocono. Gotcha? Nope!

Late note answer: And yes, if the flywheel/clutch presents no hazard, nothing required.

_________________
Jim Creighton
CARS Tour DoR
SEDiv SARRC Administrator
V8 Road Racing Series Administrator
Runoffs Line Chief Tech Prod cars


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 7:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:34 am
Posts: 2949
Location: Wauwatosa, WI
Maybe the rule wordage should be shortened.

9.3.40. SCATTERSHIELDS/CHAIN GUARDS
The installation of scattershields or explosion-proof bell housings shall be required on all cars except Spec Miata, Touring and Improved Touring.

Minimum material specifications are:
.125 inch SAE 4130 alloy steel
.250 inch mild steel plate
.250 inch aluminum alloy
NHRA or SFI approved flexible shields

_________________
Have Fun ; )

David Dewhurst
CenDiv Milwaukee Region
F Prod #14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 5:32 pm
Posts: 565
If your bell housing is .250 thick, it meets the rules for scatter shields. How many of them are thinner than that? None?

Then it is a moot point.

_________________
Scott Sanda


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group