Wes,
You are correct about forces and the strength of the tubing. I have seen
some welds that scare me and as an inspector have mentioned it to the
competitor, normally all you get is "that stupid #$%^@*&(*# inspector does
not know what he is talking about" (Sound familiar to some of you?) If the
basic construction of chassis is followed as shown in the rule book, the
engineering is good and sound. As the rule book states, section III-2,
"All deviations to roll structure rules must be submitted"... This is
because we have an engineer, that is on the rules committee, review each and
every request.
I have learned more about car construction in the last several years than I
ever did reading books by being on just about every incident on the salt and
dirt. It is amazing what you find, and because of what we find the safety
rules change constantly. I am proud to say that we learn from EVERY
incident.
Mike
>From drizzly Lancaster.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wester S Potter <wspotter@jps.net>
To: Mike Manghelli <mmanghel@hughes.net>; John Beckett
<landspeedracer@email.msn.com>; Tom Neimeyer <3cbxs@ev1.net>; Land Speed
<land-speed@autox.team.net>
Date: Monday, February 14, 2000 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Chassis Tubing
>Mike, List,
>When you see the results of the forces some of these cages and frames are
>subjected to in an "incident" the question is not just is the tubing strong
>enough but is the bracing and welding up to absorbing the forces. Mayf
>mentioned a while back that he had the triangulation figured out on his
>cage. I thought at the time that it would be nice to have a rocket
>scientist or a structural engineer to run such a structure by just to make
>sure things were properly thought out. The days of Harvey Haller and a
roll
>bar shorter than the top of his head are thankfully over on the salt. The
>ruling a few years ago requiring the additional roll-cage distance forward
>from the front of the face shield caused some grumbling but made such good
>sense. I have no idea of the qualifications of all the inspectors but
would
>hope that those with the knowledge would have the guts to step up and say
>something when they think a critical structure is not properly built.
>Wes ... with a square of George"s Salt Sonnett as a reminder.
>----------
>> From: "Mike Manghelli" <mmanghel@hughes.net>
>> To: "John Beckett" <landspeedracer@email.msn.com>,"Tom Neimeyer"
><3cbxs@ev1.net>,"Land Speed" <land-speed@autox.team.net>
>> Subject: Re: Chassis Tubing
>> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 17:55:13 -0700
>>
>>John,
>>
>>You are correct about the added tubing and bring up a good point about the
>>motorcycles.
>>
>>Skip, this sounds like another one for the rules committee to look at, add
>>it to the list.
>>
>>Mike Manghelli
>>SCTA President
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: John Beckett <landspeedracer@email.msn.com>
>>To: Tom Neimeyer <3cbxs@ev1.net>; Land Speed <land-speed@autox.team.net>
>>Date: Monday, February 14, 2000 6:44 AM
>>Subject: Re: Chassis Tubing
>>
>>
>>>Tom
>>>
>>>Generally the extra weight of the larger tubing isn't a problem with LSR
>as
>>>it would be in drag racing. And the added security of the larger material
>>>may well be worth the slight extra cost. Hey the I/BGS record is 253 MPH!
>>>
>>>I've often wondered why Motorcycle Streamliners are allowed 1 1/4-inch x
>>>.090" tubing when some of these guys are running over 300 MPH.
>>>
>>>John Beckett, LSR #79
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Tom Neimeyer" <3cbxs@ev1.net>
>>>To: "Land Speed" <land-speed@autox.team.net>
>>>Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2000 9:59 PM
>>>Subject: Chassis Tubing
>>>
>>>
>>>> LSR'ers,
>>>> In the next year I plan on building a small streamliner. My
>>>understanding
>>>> from reading the rule book is that I can build the frame/rollcage from
1
>>>5/8
>>>> .120 thick DOM steel tubing. Is this correct? The liner will be
>either
>>>> H/GS or I/GS or possible H/BGS or I/BGS. Any benefits to use 1 3/4 ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|