Landracing Forum

Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: superleggera on November 13, 2012, 01:48:55 PM

Title: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: superleggera on November 13, 2012, 01:48:55 PM
There is a thread in the "Build Section" here -- http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,11024.405.html (let's leave that as a build thread!)

but it should be here under SCTA rules and for broader discussion. 

[Apparently] This went to vote and apparently got passed at SCTA meeting 3rd of November 2012:


Current Rule:

Shall completely surround the rider and shall be fitted in the rider’s compartment. Minimum diameter is 1 1⁄4 inches with .090 inch nominal wall thickness, mechanical steel tubing. No galvanized pipe, black water pipe or threaded fittings are permitted. The design of the roll cage shall incorporate the following features as a minimum: Two (2) roll bars, (one forward and one after the riders head), which shall be tied together and capped with a steel plate .090 inches thick. The cap shall cover the upper 140 deg of the riders head. The roll bar shall be braced with a tube of the same dimensions on each side. Rider’s head movement shall be limited to no more than 2 inches to each side, top or rear with the riders head in the normal position. Roll cage padding meeting SFI specifications 45.1 for round tube roll cage padding and SFI specification 45.3 for flat cage padding is required in the vicinity of the rider’s

Issue:

Motorcycle streamliner and motorcycle side car streamliner roll cage tubing size requirements

Rulebook Section: 7.H.4 Rulebook Page No: 123


Desired Outcome:

To bring motorcycle streamliner and side car streamliner tubing and cage requirements in line with the car tubing requirements

Reason for Chg:

The current tubing sizes on some streamliners and side car streamliners (Speed X weight X Mass) is inadequate.

Side Effects:

None, (Will not affect any streamliner or side car streamliner that is currently running in the SCTA or BNI).

Desired Rulebook Wording:

Shall completely surround the rider and shall be fitted in the riders compartment. Minimum diameter is 1-1/4 in. with .090 in. nominal wall thickness, mechanical steel tubing in a vehicle with speeds under 175 mph. In vehicles with speeds over 175 mph minimum requirements for the roll cage structure and the roll cage structure braces are 1-5/8 in O.D. round steel tubing with a minimum .120 in. nominal wall thickness or E4130 chromoly tubing with a minimum .095 in. nominal wall thickness, securely mounted, gusseted and braced within 5 in. of the top of the roll cage structure. ALL ROLL CAGE STRUCTURES SHALL BE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE DRIVER FROM ANY ANGLE, INCLUDING THE BOTTOM AND REAR. The front hoop of the roll cage shall be at least 3 in. in front of the drivers helmet while the driver is in his normal driving position.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: JustaRacer on November 13, 2012, 04:00:39 PM
Side Effects:


Are there others?  I don't know, but those 3 are obvious to a layman.

If weight, drag, CG, and tires aren't a problem, then the side effects are less, but still exist.

There is no free lunch.  Everything has a downside.  Folk get suspicious when they hear otherwise.  Human nature.





Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Jon on November 13, 2012, 05:04:26 PM
Side Effects:

  • Cross-sectional area could increase.
  • Weight of safety cage will roughly double, probably raising the CG, and increasing the tire/susp loading.
  • Cost of construction increases.

Are there others?  I don't know, but those 3 are obvious to a layman.

If weight, drag, CG, and tires aren't a problem, then the side effects are less, but still exist.

There is no free lunch.  Everything has a downside.  Folk get suspicious when they hear otherwise.  Human nature.








All are very valid points if you do not already own or are currently constructing a motorcycle streamliner.

The impact is a little more if you currently own or are currently building, which is 100% of the people really effected  by this rule change.

Regards
jon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 1212FBGS on November 13, 2012, 05:22:41 PM
Hey Guys
well i stirred up quite a bee's nest here..... My fricken phone and email has been blowing up today.... Im gonna wait till tonight to see what todays outcome has been in this regard before i continue to throw people under the bus but i need your help...This Rule was submitted by Van Butler (proposed by someone else, not his original idea)... Van has lied to the board and all the clubs that this rule does not effect anyone..... I have compiled a small list of bike liners that this rule could effect..... can you review this list and add anybody i left out? If you are on this list or this rule effects you or someone you know please PM me for all the board members email address so you can send them a letter....
thanks
Kent

Bob Williams.......... arrow liner
Sam Wheeler.......... ez hook
Max Lambke.......... Vincent
Bill Dube............... Killajoule
Mike Akatiff........... ackattack
Craig Anderson...... Flying Kiwi
Leo Hess................Hess Liner
John Parham......... JP Liner
Kent Riches........... Breese liner
Kent Riches....... ....Braverman liner
Kent Riches........... Harley Liner
Kent Riches........... Lightning bolt
Jack Costella......... 5050 liner
Jack Costella......... 8080 liner
California fritz........ harley liner
Kenny Lions.......... Honda liner
 
 
New Builds
Gaberial Utley........ Angelic bulldog
Alex McFazden.......Turbine liner (Vesco North rebuild)
Jon Bennett.......... Ausi Suzuki
Larry Pater............ Pater liner
Kent Riches........... Little liner

Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 1212FBGS on November 13, 2012, 05:36:30 PM
Can anybody on this forum do a CAD drawing of a frame and failure analysts comparison on the 2 tubing sized before Friday?
kr
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: fredvance on November 13, 2012, 06:05:54 PM
What about the Budfab liner?
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Tman on November 13, 2012, 06:23:07 PM
Check your PMs Kent
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 1212FBGS on November 13, 2012, 07:15:04 PM
bubfab under 175mph.... thanks tman for the pm... i need to get the names of these liners owners... 3 apparently in Australia, 1 in Switzerland, i jet powered?liner,  that Rocky guy with the old indian liner in the mid west.....  I looked some guys liner build pix at the world finals he is building a Suzuki liner any body know his name? Come on guys i need more ammunition..... also need some CAD help ! ! !
kent
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Gman on November 13, 2012, 07:46:17 PM
Side Effects:
  None, (Will not affect any streamliner or side car streamliner that is currently running in the SCTA or BNI).


Does this mean that any currently running are grandfathered in?
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Jon on November 13, 2012, 08:12:27 PM
Apparently there is no grandfathering.

As far as CFD if Woody can do mine before then and the price is reachable I'll get the measurements and pictures to him as soon as I get home, on the way back from looking at the eclipse.

Problem is there are as many cage designs as there are Streamliner Bikes.

Regards
jon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: generatorshovel on November 13, 2012, 08:34:21 PM
bubfab under 175mph.... thanks tman for the pm... i need to get the names of these liners owners... 3 apparently in Australia, 1 in Switzerland, i jet powered?liner,  that Rocky guy with the old indian liner in the mid west.....  I looked some guys liner build pix at the world finals he is building a Suzuki liner any body know his name? Come on guys i need more ammunition..... also need some CAD help ! ! !
kent

Kent, these are the bike 'liner owner / builders in Oz at the moment I know of.
Lucky Keizer  DLRA #105
Greg Watters  DLRA # 378
Ken Robinson  DLRA # 783
Jon Baxendell DLRA #877
Ross Brown    DLRA #925
Tiny
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on November 13, 2012, 08:51:03 PM
God Lord, 21 liners!?!?  26 counting OZ?

I'm not into bikes, but that's got to be more bikes than Studebakers that run SCTA-BNI!

How could anybody claim lack of knowledge to what would be the numerical equivelent of 4% of all the vehicles that ran at Speedweek last year?



Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: killajoule on November 13, 2012, 08:59:14 PM
Adding to the list:

John Renwick (Vincent-powered sidecar streamliner, dark green, UK) typically does not run at SCTA, only at BUB, but he is in the affected group if he wished to run.
His liner lives in New Jersey these days, so he should be added to the US list.

// Eva 
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: maj on November 13, 2012, 09:17:56 PM
Kent i left a message with a guy doing a build in Stockton CA, he is well into it  , could be the guy you talked to at WF
NA busa motor
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 1212FBGS on November 13, 2012, 09:39:29 PM
Van Butler is the motorcycle committee chair and the one who submitted this rule change... he is either very forgetful and even forgot about the French 'liner that showed up 3 1/2 months ago or he purposely omitted them to mislead the board and all of the club members that had a vote.... when the board see that no one will be effected and all of the club members see that no one will be effected by the change, then it should be a slam dunk approval.... This alone should be reason to toss it to submit next year

Thanks for the names shovel and eva... Maj keep on the name thing for me please.... anybody come up with the Indian guys name yet?.... Its Maroon with a big indian head on the side and he drives a converted bus, the 'liner use to run SCTA with a Suzuki motor in it

Eva, its cool that John runs with Bub... If the SCTA weren't so narrow minded we could probably get him to run with us as well as some other liners out there.. but the mindset behind the SCTA is not attractive to bring in new competitors... the ones on the fence fall to the best environment and usually not the SCTA... Keep in mind this rule change effects SCTA, USFRA, and DRLA racers... lucky we still have Bub and Cook...

kent
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 1212FBGS on November 13, 2012, 10:24:41 PM
Jamie Williams is the guy in Stockton Ca... apparently 95% done with the chassis.... Guess he already talked to Drew about running with Bub 'cause he cant with the SCTA...
Kent
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 1212FBGS on November 13, 2012, 10:42:09 PM
Rick Dillenger is the owner/racer of the Dream Catcher Indian 'liner.... it use to be the Shane Kenneally Suzuki 'liner from Canada... now illegal to run SCTA, USFRA, and DRLA events
kent
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Tman on November 13, 2012, 11:49:26 PM
And the list goes on.............
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: JustaRacer on November 14, 2012, 10:01:39 AM
Going to get some heat from this, but:

Many of the rules are based on the worst case vehicle, not the average or best.  And they cover 100% of vehicles with no grandfathering.  

Didn't you folk get upset when 50/50 coolant was outlawed?  

Any of you see normal 50/50 coolant catch fire?  Want to know why?  It's almost impossible to ignite since you have to boil off all the water first.   100% coolant can though, hence a Worst Case rule.

Nobody got mad when you were forced to tow street bikes/cars with factory gearing and good visibility?  It has caused injuries that I witnessed, but somebody with a streamliner could drive down the return road and hit somebody since the visibility is low, or somebody could break the rules and drive too fast (they do anyhow, but now with a rope).

Or when cars with crumple zones, airbags, padded dashes, and collapsable steering columns needed HANS stuff?  This HANS stuff is old news.  It's based on why airbags were invented.  It's a ghetto airbag.

You allowed worse case rules into the books and didn't see a problem with it.  If somebody builds a 4000lb motorcycle, it really should have a 1.625" or stronger cage.  2000lb a tire is doable.  I doubt anyone would go there, but it is a possibility.  

I don't agree with this rule change, but you had to be blind not to see it coming.  The cars require cages that are stronger than 180mph NHRA cages regardless of their speed.  If the record is under 100, it doesn't matter.  And NHRA gets a lot of rollovers and collisions and impacts.

It's time to knock it off.  Stop with the "absolute worse case" rule set and find a middle ground.  



Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Steve Walters on November 14, 2012, 12:54:48 PM
I can no longer remain silent, I don't like to devulge information from official duties such as the rules meeting, but oh well.  Kent, the head motorcycle tech did not vote for the rule change.  Most all of the prevote talk was negative towards the change, It floored me when the vote was positive, but I can very well figure it out.  The different clubs are mostly made up of car racers, some of them don't want the MC's at their meets, one guy even yelled out get rid of the motorcycles.

 I've seen the the motorcycle guys so frustrated thay have walked out of the meeting before.  I saw this coming the first time I read the proposal, all the debate was moot.

Hopefully this will be a turning point to bring the Land Speed Community together in the long run, I surelly believe this will have a large impact on the racer turn out at the meets.  Positive for BUB  :-) Negative for the others  :-o.

Steve       
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Jon on November 14, 2012, 05:41:26 PM
Being a CAD Luddite I've gone for the TAP method.
Tape And Pictures.

Looking through the rear hoop facing forwards:
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w278/jonra23/B2A1C97D-A115-4551-9459-7E063E95BFDD-478-000000EE687D5577.jpg)

Looking from above the front wheel tub facing backwards:
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w278/jonra23/EE311E2F-5160-4D5D-9C0A-D4AE4B900ED3-478-000000EE93CCAAA4.jpg)

Side view:
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w278/jonra23/2D709FCD-0846-43E7-A7A6-FD32AB84C2F3-478-000000EE8B0FFC49.jpg)

Another side view:
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w278/jonra23/E1904E2D-39A7-4225-AE3C-C04BB188593A-478-000000EE7A7CB35C.jpg)

The tape represents 1.25" DOM tubing, the two longer ones from the top of the upright at the back of the wheeltub down to the bottom rail at the hoop they comes down from the front hoop then back up to midrail height on the back roll hoop will be rolled to follow the body contour, the rest are straight.

The whole roll hoop structure from the midrail up and the feet area (the non crossed square next to the wheeltub) will be plated on the outside using 2.4mm (0.94") FMS.
The rest of the riders compartment will be skinned with 1.6mm (0.63") sheet.

The lower control arm mounting points will tied into the the bottom rail, the wheeltub and the upright rail at rear of the wheeltub, the control arm will be boxed out of the riders compartment.

Going to submit to the Motorcycle Tech Committee now.

Regards
jon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: bak189 on November 14, 2012, 06:17:48 PM
In my 35 years of racing on the salt, it has ALWAYS been known that SCTA/BNI
does not want motorcycles and sidecars at their events........this goes all the way back to the 1970's when I first brought our sidecar to the BNI Meet......at this point in time I don't need them and all their rule changes and BS......we race the BUB event...
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: stay`tee on November 14, 2012, 06:56:17 PM
I  have no dog in this fight, BUT, have a cuppla mates who do, and as such, stand with them and all bike 'liner owners and crews,,
Being half a world away from where this decisions been made, its very obvious that it appears to be "Political",,
I applaude Kent for standing up, telling it like it is, and taking the fight to 'em, and encourage anyone with sound Engineering Qualifications to get on board and back him (Kent) up,,
If there are any motorcycle owners/riders within these clubs, speak up and start talking to your fellow club members, otherwise your just ,,,,,, yeah, you deal with it,,,,
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: JustaRacer on November 14, 2012, 07:21:13 PM
I've always enjoyed every SCTA event I've raced at.  The folk who do the bulk of work are good people, and most would give you the shirt off their back.  This is not brown nosing, it's simply an observation of what happens if you need help.

I believe their intentions are good (safety), but without a pattern of deficiency, it should be only a recommendation.  Or based on weight if weight is the trigger. 

I fully intended to run both a car class and a motorcycle class this year, but the budget ran dry before we could get the car up to 2012 specs, and the MC ran out of time due to work schedules.

I would implore those who are voting in this cage change matter to make it a RECOMMENDATION for 2013 to give racers time to evaluate the heavier cage.



Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 1212FBGS on November 14, 2012, 08:51:08 PM
Unfortunately a few of the rules in the book were because of blood.... I think the people behind this rule had good intentions and even stated they wanted to head off any future injuries.... But without any hard data of potential injury you shouldn't just change a rule because "someone" feels the current rule is "Inadequate".... If this was some Joe Blow off the streets who wanted to change a rule because they "thought" it was "inadequate" they would blow him off... But not here, the drafter behind this rule (it wasn't Van) is well connected and very influential, and actually a good guy with sound judgement, (I have mad respect for him) But he is cumming at this with out evidence of inadequacies...

I have pretty much committed racing suicide by opposing this guy, sending letters to the board, and posting my rants here in public.... but you know that little thing in the back of your brain that says "you shouldn't do that' or "you shouldn't say that".... yep i don't have one of those!....

Here's is a clip of an email i sent over to him last night ....... warning its pretty harsh....

    at this point im not gonna get into the liability issue of having our unqualified tech inspectors give advise on frame design, or redesign, or the potential of liability exposure of said advise… In one statement you claim we don’t want to help design a frame and then flip around and say we’ll approve a substandard condition if you follow our recommendations… you and others have stated this over and over…. OMFG do you guys not realize how potentially dangerous this activity is to our organization? I would have to say a far greater exposure level than 1.25 tubing is....
 
I also don’t have time to address the fact that you have only offered your “opinions” on the frame issue and not offered any hard facts that the current frame size is unsafe… You submitted John Bjorkman’s email but failed to forward to the board the engineering study/statement sent to you by Larry Pater’s warning you about the possibility of the increased weight and stiffness might not absorb energy and possibly compounding injury… in all fairness maybe you should forward it to the board….
 
The rule change process is clear with questions. The 4th question for change is “Reason for change”.. You have yet to offer any hard data to prove the current tubing rule is inadequate.You have done no testing, no CAD analysis only provided assumptions based on tubing size comparisons… The math formula you provided in the rule proposal is not useful (was it a joke?) The equations John Bjorkman emailed you is good and is computable… but so what!! It is good info but do the results of his calculations prove that 1.25 tubing is unsafe…. Sorry nope…. Come on xxxxx, prove to me and the board members that the current 1.25 tubing is unsafe….
 
 
xxxxxx, we all agree that the strength of a chassis comes in design not tubing size (reference your submitted statement from Johns email 1st paragraph last sentence) We all agree the increased tubing size is stronger…. We all agree the tubing is heavier… But you offer no real or hard data that there is a problem and the current frames are unsafe… These 1.25 frames have survived many, many crashes without failures.. This has to speak volumes as to the current chassis safety… If you want to continue to use Chilsons crash as “evidence of testing” to support your claim “bigger is better” and present this claim to these board members, then I will feel compelled to submit that my 217mph crash without injury as “testing” I will also submit Rocky's 2 crashes with an 1.25 tubing frame at 300+ without injury as further proof of safety. Also Jimmy Odem’s crash with 1.25 tubing at 300+.  Also Sam Wheelers 250+ crash with 1.25 tubing without injury… Also the guy racing the Arrow liner at 200+ (no injury) with a 1.25 frame… If you want to use your 1 single crash as evidence, im gonna have to use these 5. I will definitely remember more “crash testing” by Friday… Please by all means, come up with 1 (one) injury related to frame or roll bar structure failure with 1.25 tubing…. These frames are safe as specified in our current rulebook
 
And by the way your statement to the board  “The racing community has known for sometime now that this was coming”  is totally misleading to the board, Heck the current motorcycle tech guys didn’t know about it before the rule change proposal. I would hope that if they did they should have warned builders that are currently in process to hold off… Total surprised us bike guys

Yeah it was pretty harsh but right to the point.... Man i hope this guy doesn't own a gun or I'm a dead man....

Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: killajoule on November 14, 2012, 09:17:53 PM
I would implore those who are voting in this cage change matter to make it a RECOMMENDATION for 2013 to give racers time to evaluate the heavier cage.

I typically don't like public discussions like these, I prefer to spend my time making my streamliner go faster. But in this case I just can't remain silent anymore. However, I won't go into politics, simply present some technical facts about streamliner motorcycles that are unknown to many non-motorcycle streamliner racers.

JustaRacer - I don't doubt your intentions to race both a bike and a motorcycle this year. Good for you! But of every 100 (or maybe 1000) people "intending" to race at Bonneville, one (1) or so actually end up doing it. Since you have been one of these previously, so I am sure you understand how much work it is and how expensive it is to build a scratch-build a salt racer. The KillaJoule electric streamliner is built on a shoe-string budget, and I already have about a normal year's salary or two into it from my own pocket, and about the same from the sponsors.

However, from your quote above it is obvious that you have never built a _motorcycle streamliner_ (if you ever decide to do so, I am happy to tell you what I wished I knew when I started.) Since I have actually built a motorcycle streamliner with my own two hands, I will take the right to express my opinion in this case.

The discussed "roll cage" in a motorcycle streamliner is very different that the typical roll cages you see in most cars at Bonneville or at the drag strip. The roll cage in these cars are add-ons that are either bolted or welded onto the car. In a motorcycle streamliner, the "roll-cage" _is_ the vehicle. It is really not correct to talk about "roll-cages" in these vehicles, even if this term is used in the rulebook.

Since many on this forum probably never had the pleasure to take a closer look at a "naked" streamliner motorcycle, I will add this recently taken "x-ray-like" picture of KillaJoule.

(In case you can't see the picture, I have never added a picture here before, you can see it on my Facebook page (you don't have to be a member to view it, ignore the prompt to log in): https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=455035614533032&set=a.134928633210400.12094.134690893234174&type=1&theater (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=455035614533032&set=a.134928633210400.12094.134690893234174&type=1&theater)

As you can see from the picture, there is no separate "roll-cage". The entire driver's compartment is also a part of the frame/chassis. Changing the tube size would mean that I had to cut off the vehicle behind the steering neck, and replace the entire structure to behind the firewall. Since the driver's compartment is built to fit me like a glove, the increased tube diameter would have to be projected outwards, resulting in a need for also a brand new bodywork. Essentially, I pull off the wheels, pull out the drivetrain and build a whole new vehicle.

Requiring a change in "roll-cage" tubing diameter in all existing motorcycle streamliners is like requiring thicker sheet metal in all uni-body cars (like normal passenger cars). It is equivalent to building a whole new vehicle.

I always think the best of people until they have proven differently, so I would assume that this completely ridiculous rule change is caused by lack of understanding of the construction of a motorcycle streamliner. The people voting think it is just changing out some tubes.
If they really _do_ understand the construction of the typical motorcycle streamliner, then this is a very clever way of getting rid of all the motorcycle streamliners...
The result is the same, no matter what the intent. I guess I will see you all at BUB.  :-)

Enough from me.

// Eva
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: kiwi belly tank on November 15, 2012, 07:09:27 AM
I can't imagine what I would do if I had to cut up my liner (car) to change the tubing size, it's an integral part of the chassis. 
I would like to understand the mind set of those that voted for this change with the evidence put before them, as I'm sure others would too. I see no other possibilities other than ignorance or arrorgance & neither of them should have a place here.
So it still has to be approved by the SCTA board, Right??
Is that just a formallity or can common sence on their part solve this issue by rejecting it??
 :? :? :? Sid.
 Politics, how so many can be fu..d by so few.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 55chevr on November 15, 2012, 08:08:37 AM
There is no common sense involved here.  The car guys are making the rules for motorcycles.  They basically want only 2 wheeled cars racing as streamliner motorcycles.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: JustaRacer on November 15, 2012, 09:57:48 AM
...
The discussed "roll cage" in a motorcycle streamliner is very different that the typical roll cages you see in most cars at Bonneville or at the drag strip. The roll cage in these cars are add-ons that are either bolted or welded onto the car. In a motorcycle streamliner, the "roll-cage" _is_ the vehicle. It is really not correct to talk about "roll-cages" in these vehicles, even if this term is used in the rulebook.

...
Requiring a change in "roll-cage" tubing diameter in all existing motorcycle streamliners is like requiring thicker sheet metal in all uni-body cars (like normal passenger cars). It is equivalent to building a whole new vehicle.

...

// Eva

In my first post, I noted it will increase cross-sectional area, since the tube increase must go outboard.  New body. 

To enlighten you about cars, no credit is given for OEM structures, except perhaps the firewall?  If your car has a significant roll structure and door/dash bars, you are allowed to remove it, or weaken it.  It would be stupid, but legal.  I would put a 2012 economy car up against many SCTA entries as far as survivability goes.  There's more than meets the eye in a modern car.  Strip one down to the chassis and look.  Most people don't even know there are rollbars or door bars in them.

Sent you a PM.  Good luck with your racing.  :cheers:

 

Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Peter Jack on November 15, 2012, 10:24:22 AM
What do production cars have to do with motorcycle streamliners?????

These guys already have too many car guys causing problems for them!!!

Pete
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: JustaRacer on November 15, 2012, 11:06:43 AM
What do production cars have to do with motorcycle streamliners?????

These guys already have too many car guys causing problems for them!!!

Pete

I think the more important question is what does the proposed MC streamliner change have in common with many of the recent changes.

You might think this is a unique single occurrence of an expensive rule change that is probably unnecessary, but it's not.

Exactly where do you hit the brakes?

If you claim this only a MC Streamliner issue fine.  Let the majority decide for you.

I've been riding and racing motorcycles since 1975, just not LSR yet, which I hope do next year.  There were many, many years I didn't even own a car.  I went to the Prom with my date on a MC with clipons, wearing a tux and her in a prom dress.  When I broke my leg, I strapped crutches on the side and kick started with a crutch to get to work, so I'm not sure I qualify as a "car guy" in your definition of what a car guy is.

But perhaps you're right.  MC Streamliner rules are unique and unrelated to general SCTA rules.  My opinion is different, and is just that, an opinion that enough is enough. :cheers:
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Peter Jack on November 15, 2012, 11:21:55 AM
I too put a lot of miles on motorcycles but I'm still mainly a car guy. I do think motorcycle streamliners are a special case, maybe not even understood by a lot of the motorcycle guys.

I think if you and I met face to face we wouldn't disagree on much.  :cheers:

Pete
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: JustaRacer on November 15, 2012, 11:41:26 AM
I too put a lot of miles on motorcycles but I'm still mainly a car guy. I do think motorcycle streamliners are a special case, maybe not even understood by a lot of the motorcycle guys.

I think if you and I met face to face we wouldn't disagree on much.  :cheers:

Pete

Perhaps not.   :cheers:

I consider myself a hotrodder.  From the time I mowed neighbors yards to get a minibike, until today, I'm always trying to tweak whatever I ride/drive.  My daily driver is sleeper.  Looks slow, kills vettes.

I really got hooked on LSR when I first tried it, and want to continue, but dang, the rules are going crazy.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Koncretekid on November 15, 2012, 11:49:28 AM
I have no iron in this fire as I do not have a motorcycle streamliner and have not run at SCTA ……Yet!  Hopefully, this will make me an impartial observer.

Although I am a professional engineer with a degree in mechanical engineering, I have never practiced, nor am I qualified as a structural engineer, and it has been over 40 years since I graduated.  Therefore the observations that I make here are not intended to imply that current or proposed structural requirements are adequate.

The first statement that raised a flag to me was the wording of the proposed rule change that reads as follows:

"Reason for Chg:

The current tubing sizes on some streamliners and side car streamliners "Speed X weight X Mass) is inadequate.."

I am not familiar with any formula that uses speed x weight x mass as a basis for determining structural requirements.  Firstly, weight and mass are related quantities only differentiated the force of gravity, and on the surface of the earth (which I believe includes the Bonneville Salt Flats!) they can be used interchangeably in unitless comparisons.  Therefore, the formula as given can be simplified as velocity x weight squared.  Ironically, this would imply that a 4000 lb vehicle would have 4 times the structural requirement as a 2000 lb vehicle and the argument for motorcycle streamliners to have equal structural requirements as the usually heavier 4 wheel streamliners becomes suspect.

But I believe that a better formula for determining structural requirements should be that for kinetic energy, which is the energy that a moving vehicle possesses, and that which must be dissipated for the vehicle to come to a stop.  This formula is relative to the mass (weight) of the vehicle x the velocity squared (KE=1/2mv squared).  Although this energy cannot be lost, it can be converted to heat thru the process of force times distance.  This force can be the friction of the vehicle with the ground, the friction of the air velocity on the vehicle hopefully aided by a parachute, and in worst case scenarios, by destruction of the vehicle thru crumple zones and energy absorbing wear pads.  Using the kinetic energy formula, a vehicle that is twice as heavy will have twice the kinetic energy (not four times) as a vehicle half its weight traveling at a given speed.  But, velocity is the more important factor here, because a vehicle traveling twice as fast as another one of the same weight will have four times the kinetic energy.

In any case, the force required to dissipate this energy due to friction with the surface, or destruction of the vehicle, will be proportional to its weight.  The force of friction with the ground is classically determined by the weight times the friction factor, which indicates that a heavier vehicle will undergo more energy loss due to friction which will create more heat, and will probably undergo more structural damage due to the higher friction force.  Furthermore, if the vehicle becomes airborne and returns to the ground at speed, more structural damage can be expected due to its heavier weight.

My conclusions are that SCTA and other governing bodies should be proposing structural improvements to vehicles solely based upon their weight and projected speed, and not on the number of wheels.  I would suggest that making any change based on insufficient data would not be helpful.  But it is probably important that these governing bodies take a serious look at all the structural requirements in view of the increasing speeds that are being generated and possible future speeds.  Any serious accident based on insufficient structural requirements could have a devastating consequence on our privilege of using the Salt Flats, not to mention increasing insurance cost that may follow.  The following table, if it prints as I have typed it, indicates vehicle comparisons, and the need for different structural requirements based on their relative kinetic energy.  I do not propose any solutions to the tube size requirement, as it is only one component of the structural requirements.  For purposes of comparing vehicles, I will use unit values of  (1) for a 1250 lb vehicle, and (1) for 175 mph.

Relative Kinetic Energy of Vehicle at Speed (weight x velocity x velocity, unitless)

Vehicle weight        175mph    250mph         400mph
    1250 lbs          1         2.05        5.22
    2500 lbs          2         4.10        10.44
    5000 lbs          4         8.20        20.88

This shows, for example, that a 5000 lb vehicle traveling at 400 mph will have twice (20.88/10.44) the kinetic energy as a 2500 lb vehicle traveling at the same speed, and four times the kinetic energy as a 1250 lb vehicle.  More importantly, it shows that any vehicle in the list will have 5.22 times the kinetic energy at 400 mph as it does at 175mph.

I hope these observations can be used to help formulate future structural requirements for our vehicles, regardless of the number of wheels.  It may also imply that we need tiered structural requirements based on the above.  Increasing structural requirements for all vehicles, regardless of weight and speed, would be a mistake, as it would certainly drive up costs of construction, and reduce the number of participants who would be able to compete.

I invite constructive criticism.

D. Thomas Borcherdt, BSME, P.Eng
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: JoshH on November 15, 2012, 11:55:08 AM
I don’t have a dog in this fight either but I do feel terrible for the competitors that this could affect. I don’t particularly like the idea of excluding anyone that’s taken the time and commitment to build one of these machines.

In general most special construction vehicles that I’ve seen are done very well. The builders of these vehicles take the safety of their drivers/riders seriously and it shows in the thoughtfulness of the construction.

However, in rare occasions I’ve seen special construction vehicles that pass tech with all the required tubing sizes that are terribly fabricated. It still shocks me that the owners of these vehicles don’t recognize the problem and feel comfortable in these vehicles.

I think allot of people believe that increasing tube size is the way to make safer vehicles. This would in fact be true if good design and craftsmanship were not such huge factors in the strength of these structures. I would argue that no increase in tube sizing is a substitute for these two other factors. The problem is these areas are somewhat subjective where tube size is pretty definitive.

So will such a rule change increase the safety of poorly designed and fabricated vehicles? This isn’t likely. And to exclude owners of well built/proven vehicles to this end seems completely misguided.

I sincerely hope this is resolved in a logical manor at the next meeting.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Stan Back on November 15, 2012, 12:35:50 PM
I believe the motorcycle streamliner guys are getting screwed on this matter.  But I don't believe the conspiracy theory -- that the SCTA is trying to screw and eliminate the MC guys.  Yes, there's always a rivalry going on -- our club included. 

But when entry numbers at lake events are declining, and SpeedWeek has to subsidize them, why would the SCTA try to cut their numbers?  It take a certain number of people that work to put on a salt week -- more for SpeedWeek than World Finals.  A lot less for WF with only two courses, but it's a money-loser, like the lakes, too.  And the only way to make up the deficiencies is have more entries.

Hopefully the board will listen to the arguments and straighten this out.  But calling them names ain't gonna help.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: PorkPie on November 15, 2012, 01:27:37 PM
I have no iron in this fire as I do not have a motorcycle streamliner and have not run at SCTA ……Yet!  Hopefully, this will make me an impartial observer.

Although I am a professional engineer with a degree in mechanical engineering, I have never practiced, nor am I qualified as a structural engineer, and it has been over 40 years since I graduated.  Therefore the observations that I make here are not intended to imply that current or proposed structural requirements are adequate.

.............

I invite constructive criticism.

D. Thomas Borcherdt, BSME, P.Eng


Thomas,

thank you for your great comment about this issue....you mention structual engineer......here I can help a little bit....half of my study time was structual engineering...

As said before....it isn't the the tubing size which makes a frame strong...it is the design how this tubes are put together....therefore are two mathematic laws.....

Cremona and Steiner....

Cremona is the law for frame (grid) design.

Correct designed to Cremona means nothing other than...to a "normal" design.....

that you get a double so stiff frame by the same weight or you need only half the weight for the same stiffness


Steiner is a math for the strength to the height of part....Steiner means.....that twice the height get you a strength increase in sqaure.

As an example....the height is 1 and the strength number is 1.......you increase the height to 2 the result of the strength is 4......

This is why you can drill a hole in the center of a double T profile without an affect on the strength...there to center line the missing material makes no different....

If you combine Cremona and Steiner in the frame design you get this strong and safe frame design you need without big diameter tubes.....

Ack Attack and Sam Wheelers bike are the best example....Ack Attack went over 300 when the bike crashed....nothing happens....Sam was above 350 when the bike went out of controll.....at the BuB....



Unfortunately the most engineers have never heard from Cremona...maybe from Steiner.....this two maths are one of the thoughest time at the University.....

Thomas, thanks again for your great explanation.

Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: PorkPie on November 15, 2012, 01:43:57 PM
I would implore those who are voting in this cage change matter to make it a RECOMMENDATION for 2013 to give racers time to evaluate the heavier cage.


As you can see from the picture, there is no separate "roll-cage". The entire driver's compartment is also a part of the frame/chassis. Changing the tube size would mean that I had to cut off the vehicle behind the steering neck, and replace the entire structure to behind the firewall. Since the driver's compartment is built to fit me like a glove, the increased tube diameter would have to be projected outwards, resulting in a need for also a brand new bodywork. Essentially, I pull off the wheels, pull out the drivetrain and build a whole new vehicle.

Enough from me.

// Eva

Hi Eva,

you be right as you explained the frame from a motorcycle streamliner....in fact the "tube frame" of a bike streamliner is a kind of moncoque, do to this you just add the mechanical parts and the power unit.

the body panels are only to cover the frame....but if the fixing of the body panels is done in a clever way the strength of the frame can be very well increased....

This is the way how a plane is designed.....the frame alone is maybe not strong enough...but with right connection of the panels it works...

By the way....World Finals...there was some big eyes before the maybe very first real fast run on the salt......tech at World Final..before the TV showed up....unfortunately we couldn't buy enough tissues (napkins) to get the salt dry...

 
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 1212FBGS on November 15, 2012, 06:14:36 PM
Thank you all for the info and help, it is all useful and interesting… My main problem is they have now taken a mindset that “a streamliner is a streamliner”! ! ! Yes I know, I know crazy…. They cannot see the dynamics of the 2 vehicles are completely different, Heck the dynamics of a crash are different even if it is the same vehicle crashing twice…. I cant seem to get this idea across to them…. Even with the facts that all motorcycle streamliners land on their side and most cars land on their tops…. Cars will take an impact on the top of the cage and bikes will take it on the side… Cars have appendages like front and rear ends that act as leverage arms that launch vehicles into violent crashes, bikes don’t…. Most bike ‘liner rider injury have occurred from riders coming out of the cage (Gullett, Hess, Allen) and absolutely none from chassis failure… Boy the mind can be a steel trap some times… Our only hope is if they can pull this rule for a year pending futher evaluation… Heck they voted in a rule for belly pans and rear bulkheads in roadsters and gave them 1 year before they enforce it because “it effected to many racers” They have had countless injuries because of roadsters lacking belly pans and this is just tinwork for them! ! ! Its not like that new rule outlawed any roadster or forced major structural changes like ours… 1 Year for tinwork and outlaw every bike ‘liner in 1 rules meeting…. Crazy…..
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: dw230 on November 15, 2012, 06:42:11 PM
The proposed rule change for roadsters that you mention does not include belly pans. It is to enclosed the driver's cockpit from outside forces. If you are in a roadster class, Fuel, Gas, Street you must conform to the existing pan rules of that class.

Interestingly, I heard on Sirius/XM Sports today that the NFL is going to propose a weight limit on the players allowed to be on the field during kick offs and punts. Reading between the lines I see a problem with a little, tiny guy catching the ball and heading off at top speed. This little, tiny guy is then met by a big, massive guy. Maybe something to due with the mass vrs. inertia formula?

DW
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 1212FBGS on November 15, 2012, 06:51:39 PM
"Belly pan" or rear "bulkhead" whatever the terminology sorry.....  but did i get the fact straight? 1 year warning to roadster guys to add tin work?
kr
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: saltwheels262 on November 15, 2012, 09:14:43 PM
… Our only hope is if they can pull this rule for a year pending futher evaluation…

I can agree with that.
only 1 year as a BNI member. never a club member.
40 years on a hog ; as of next week.

bf



Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: dw230 on November 15, 2012, 09:21:29 PM
Yes, the one year advisory was a part of the proposal.

Big diff between belly pan and bulkhead, but moving on...

DW
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: dw230 on November 15, 2012, 09:30:25 PM
By the by Kent,

Your voting as the representative of your club at the meeting was noticed. The joking manner in which you continually voted the opposite of the room was not appreciated. While I will concide that the meeting is not well run, my fault, the attitude carried into the meeting is far from professional. We must remember that we are voting to improve the rules, promote entries and try to keep out of people's wallets.

The discussion about the tubing requirements for motorcycle streamliners does not seem to follow what I have written the proposals are put forward towards the goals.

Was your vote on each proposal the wish of your club's membership? I did notice that you did not have any notes.

If I cannot improve the meeting format, participation and professionalism I will defer to another.

DW
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Nortonist 592 on November 15, 2012, 10:45:41 PM
Interestingly, I heard on Sirius/XM Sports today that the NFL is going to propose a weight limit on the players allowed to be on the field during kick offs and punts. Reading between the lines I see a problem with a little, tiny guy catching the ball and heading off at top speed. This little, tiny guy is then met by a big, massive guy. Maybe something to due with the mass vrs. inertia formula?

DW

Perhaps they could wear 1 5/8" roll cages instead of shoulder pads?
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 1212FBGS on November 15, 2012, 11:10:59 PM
Ouch Dan..... Well, sometimes my sense of humor is not appreciated by everyone.... I certainly didn't intend for my humor to diminish the professionalism of your meeting... I thought you had run the day pretty darn good, we were able to wrap things up pretty quickly compared to years past.... Yes i absolutely had notes and i still have them in my hands... Our President sent me up primarily because our club members only had 3 issues to deal with and vote on.... It was the opinion of the club that these rules are generally decided well in advance of the rules meeting voting just like this one was.... So they didn't care how i voted... At our next club meeting i will explain to all our club members that i went to the rules meeting and voted obstinately to most of the rules, and created an attitude of unprofessional ism.... My only real fear is my hand cant take all the Hi-Fives and wont be able to drink all the beers there gonna give me..... Sorry Dan, will it help if i tell you your my favorite?
kent
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 1212FBGS on November 15, 2012, 11:23:39 PM
Dan
Just reviewed my notes on the proposal #12, page 8 of 21.... the proposal says nothing of a 1 year "advisory"... that was suggested additional wording after heated discussion that the new rule would effect too many people and they had to give the roadster guys time to fix.... Its definitely a good rule since so many racers have suffered injuries (bad burns, quite a few)... Hummmm i don't know, but maybe my thought train is wrong here... dangerous condition, many people hurt, give them 1 year to fix (roadsters)vs non threatening situation, with no injuries ever, make all competitors fix now (motorcycles).... somethings not right
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Jon on November 16, 2012, 02:50:14 AM
Friday evening here, Friday am there.

Hope everyone can take a chill pill and talk about the rule change pragmatically and not get into a name calling competition.

From what I've seen floating about it seems;
There is concern about the safety of bike liner cages.
Everyone seems to say that an 1.25" roll cage can be safe if of decent design and construction, including the person who asked the Motorcycle Tech Committee chair to put the rule change up.
There has been a fair few bike liners go down at speed without structural failure.


In my humble opinion the wording of rule change request has missed it's intended mark and needs a bit more time to get right.

I do have a vested interest in the outcome of this, it is not possible to use much of my bike if I need to go to 1-5/8" tubing. I have built a decent cage that should be reasonably strong in torsion and beaming and stand up to a bit of a whack as I  have no intention of letting my myself and maybe later my kids run in a bike that isn't structurally sound.

Regards
jon

Thanks DW for trying to keep us factual.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: ack on November 16, 2012, 11:31:39 AM
A number of bike streamliner builders have been sending me emails about what’s been going on with the rule change. I just went through the thread and I thought I would put my 2 cents in. The rule doesn't affect us as we will only run where international records are recognized so my comments are just that but may be helpful to the people who are affected.

Every bike that has held the ultimate land speed record has been made out of steel tubing 1.250” diameter or in some cases less.  Every bike that has ever held this record or made a serious attempt at the record has crashed at high speeds usually numerous times while trying for this record. None have had a failure of the roll cage. I have video of the Dave Campos crash that would give you pause about doing this stuff, same with the Honda Hawk crash looks like the bike is about 10-15 or more feet in the air at 265+ mph and noses in after Jon McKibben pulls the chute. Vesco crashed a number of times so did Cal Rayborn. Our bike has crashed twice at 300+ and once at about 100. All of these bikes when they crashed the rider survived most with no or relatively minor injuries and the bike frames remained pretty much intact. Vesco’s Lightning crash from the pictures I have seen damaged the frame the most and Don suffered a broken leg. The Gyronaut  crashed at 270 while there was serious injury to Bob Leppan the roll cage was not an issue as it had none only a single 1.250” (or smaller) loop extending up over the riders head. The Leo Hess crash was a relatively low speed crash with severe injuries however it had everything to do about the design and nothing to do about tubing size. There are areas I believe of which the SCTA could much better utilize their efforts to improve motorcycle streamliner safety than imposing an arbitrary rule require 1.625” tubing which affect so many that run or want to run their events.

I read with some interest a few comments in the thread about how the SCTA does not like bikes. We were told the same when we started building our bike. When we arrived at Speed Week in 2004 we really didn't know anybody and had not told many about the bike because we didn't want to look like fools if it didn't work. We found the people and officials some of the nicest friendliest folks around racing. We were treated with respect Mike Cook, Dana Wilson and Glen Barrett all helped us with getting through licensing and learning the procedures for running the event. I hope that spirit still remains today. 

The SCTA rule book on the other hand I feel is somewhat overly restrictive in many areas yet lacking in others. The process for deviation is really FUBAR and defies common sense.   

When we built the bike I ask the SCTA officials if we could run two 5 lb Halon 1301 bottles instead of the 11 lbs required by the rule book. I pointed out that our streamliner had but a tiny fraction of the cockpit and engine compartment area of the Phoenix diesel truck which was running close to 250 mph which was only required to run 11 lbs.  I also pointed out that a Boeing 747 traveling 550 mph which has an 8’ 6” foot diameter intake cowl only has a five lb Halon extinguisher for fire protection with one backup. I submitted a letter from the extinguisher manufacturer that they would not recommend over 1/2 lb in the rider compartment because Halon become toxic at concentrations above 5% and only a 3% concentration is required to prevent hydrocarbon combustion in the atmosphere. The answer was "the book says 11 lbs and that's what you need".  The manufacturer overfilled our bottles to 5.5 lbs for us and certified them.

I my view this change doesn't do anything to improve safety and for those that want to run SCTA and have put great time and effort in constructing their bikes in conformance to the rule book it is simply unjustifiable.  More knowledgeable inspectors especially those inspecting streamlined bikes of which there are few would do much more I believe.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: High Gear on November 16, 2012, 12:43:08 PM
Mike,

Thanks for insight, well stated. I agree completely.

X MC Streamliner Rider and Crasher.

Gary
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 1212FBGS on November 16, 2012, 01:14:31 PM
Mike
 the motorcycle inspectors are completely knowledgable and helpfull inspectors... they are not supportive of this change... sadly this is comming from the car guys....
kent
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Nortonist 592 on November 16, 2012, 04:07:56 PM
Kent,  Be grateful the car guys didn't vote that we all have to have four wheels.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Tman on November 16, 2012, 04:16:53 PM
Kent,  Be grateful the car guys didn't vote that we all have to have four wheels.

Well, some of the bike folks could use training wheels :-D

In regards to Sturgis since I work next to BH Harley
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: krusty on November 16, 2012, 05:18:09 PM
sadly this is comming from the car guys....

     Well, it ain't coming from me, and I'm certain that it is not coming from a lot of other "car guys" that participate in and view this site. Can you tone down the"car guys" slam? It doesn't help you gain support from us when you lump us all together with those SCTA members whose actions you don't agree with. I fully support you in your campaign against what appears to be a poor rule revision. Please find a better way to explain to us who the rule's proponents are/were.   thanks, vic

     
     
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Glen on November 16, 2012, 05:21:45 PM
Maybe the voters should be shown  Yea's  & Nay's  in the SCTA rules committee in tonights meeting minutes.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: SaltPeter on November 16, 2012, 07:56:06 PM
I think doing the blame thing is counterproductive.

The main issue for me is that any Safety related rule change needs to be based upon sound verifiable research and I can't see it in this case.

I do not understand the Formula Speed X weight X Mass that is supposed to explain the inadequacy of the Current Tube size.

If this Rule change gets accepted, despite evidence that it is a misguided and potentially damaging attempt to improve safety, it might have a lot of unintended consequences.

One thing this Rule change has certainly achieved for the SCTA, is to give the impression that the Rule Change process is seriously flawed.

I am sure that 99% of the time it is not.

Pete from Oz.

Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Jon on November 16, 2012, 09:09:26 PM
live audio feed from the Australian Motorcycle Streamliner Community  (http://ifasgallery.ifas.ufl.edu/entnem/walker/buzz/489sl.wav)

Does anyone know what time the meeting is?
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on November 16, 2012, 10:38:16 PM
live audio feed from the Australian Motorcycle Streamliner Community  (http://ifasgallery.ifas.ufl.edu/entnem/walker/buzz/489sl.wav)

Well, I would disagree with that - it was you and Grummy that brought this to the attention of myself, and many of us "car guys" in the US.

Edicts by fiat of this magnitude only work in a vacuum.

Jon, I know the DLRA is trying to follow the SCTA book, but if the reason is to permit Aussie racers the opportunity to potentially run Bonneville, I'd suggest rewriting this portion of your rule book to align with FIA and BUBS requirements. 

I'm getting the sick feeling that this train has already left the station.  I think of the time, effort and expense that has been poured into these bikes - apparently bikes some SCTA officials are unaware even exist - and all I can do is shake my head. 


Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: panic on November 17, 2012, 12:28:22 AM
Koncretekid posted the most comprehensive analysis of the forces involved, thanks.

Just a thought: if the purpose of the change is to improve the bending resistance (protects against intrusion, or folding the chassis) of the 1.25" × .090" tube by enlarging the OD to 1.625" × .120", that almost triples (291%) the current level.
Where's the math says that 291% is safe? Or needed at all?
An intermediate safety level (+100%) could be obtained in some existing chassis by simply adding another 1.25" OD tube adjacent and tangent to the existing - no larger skin, no less driver room, just more work and weight.

I'll assume based on unresponsive comments made on behalf of the legal department (who probably contain fewer engineers than this thread), try submitting this proposition to your liability insurance carrier, and see if you don't get a Fex-Ex back "CANCELLED".
Without getting all legalese, the concept is "reasonable assumption of risk", where if you require nothing and the car explodes - too bad.
OTOH, if you told him exactly what to do, and it doesn't work, you eat the whole "wrongful death", "loss of consortium", "projection of future earnings", "pain and suffering", etc.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: panic on November 17, 2012, 12:35:40 AM
Rules are also supposed to have some demonstrable factual/scientific/actuarial basis.
An example of why:
1. racer has a sponsored car
2. racer fails tech for a violation similar to our topic - a new "safety" rule that has no research, testing, expert opinion, etc.
3. racer appeals, and loses
4. sponsor withdraws, and sues for his money on the basis that the car was never displayed therefore sponsor received no benefit from the sponsorship
5. racer impleads the sanctioning body, claiming the the car was legal absent the arbitrary rule that disqualified it, and asks as remedy that the Court either:
A. order the sponsor to collect the money from the sanctioning body, or
B. allow the car to run

SCTA is only 1 lawyer away from something like this.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Dr Goggles on November 17, 2012, 12:47:10 AM
A number of bike streamliner builders have been sending me emails about what’s been going on with the rule change. I just went through the thread and I thought I would put my 2 cents in. The rule doesn't affect us as we will only run where international records are recognized so my comments are just that but may be helpful to the people who are affected.

Every bike that has held the ultimate land speed record has been made out of steel tubing 1.250” diameter or in some cases less.  Every bike that has ever held this record or made a serious attempt at the record has crashed at high speeds usually numerous times while trying for this record. None have had a failure of the roll cage. I have video of the Dave Campos crash that would give you pause about doing this stuff, same with the Honda Hawk crash looks like the bike is about 10-15 or more feet in the air at 265+ mph and noses in after Jon McKibben pulls the chute. Vesco crashed a number of times so did Cal Rayborn. Our bike has crashed twice at 300+ and once at about 100. All of these bikes when they crashed the rider survived most with no or relatively minor injuries and the bike frames remained pretty much intact. Vesco’s Lightning crash from the pictures I have seen damaged the frame the most and Don suffered a broken leg. The Gyronaut  crashed at 270 while there was serious injury to Bob Leppan the roll cage was not an issue as it had none only a single 1.250” (or smaller) loop extending up over the riders head. The Leo Hess crash was a relatively low speed crash with severe injuries however it had everything to do about the design and nothing to do about tubing size. There are areas I believe of which the SCTA could much better utilize their efforts to improve motorcycle streamliner safety than imposing an arbitrary rule require 1.625” tubing which affect so many that run or want to run their events.

I read with some interest a few comments in the thread about how the SCTA does not like bikes. We were told the same when we started building our bike. When we arrived at Speed Week in 2004 we really didn't know anybody and had not told many about the bike because we didn't want to look like fools if it didn't work. We found the people and officials some of the nicest friendliest folks around racing. We were treated with respect Mike Cook, Dana Wilson and Glen Barrett all helped us with getting through licensing and learning the procedures for running the event. I hope that spirit still remains today. 

The SCTA rule book on the other hand I feel is somewhat overly restrictive in many areas yet lacking in others. The process for deviation is really FUBAR and defies common sense.   

When we built the bike I ask the SCTA officials if we could run two 5 lb Halon 1301 bottles instead of the 11 lbs required by the rule book. I pointed out that our streamliner had but a tiny fraction of the cockpit and engine compartment area of the Phoenix diesel truck which was running close to 250 mph which was only required to run 11 lbs.  I also pointed out that a Boeing 747 traveling 550 mph which has an 8’ 6” foot diameter intake cowl only has a five lb Halon extinguisher for fire protection with one backup. I submitted a letter from the extinguisher manufacturer that they would not recommend over 1/2 lb in the rider compartment because Halon become toxic at concentrations above 5% and only a 3% concentration is required to prevent hydrocarbon combustion in the atmosphere. The answer was "the book says 11 lbs and that's what you need".  The manufacturer overfilled our bottles to 5.5 lbs for us and certified them.

I my view this change doesn't do anything to improve safety and for those that want to run SCTA and have put great time and effort in constructing their bikes in conformance to the rule book it is simply unjustifiable.  More knowledgeable inspectors especially those inspecting streamlined bikes of which there are few would do much more I believe.


Sober analysis from an expert, the Halon issue has had my interest for a while Mike.....as for the rest of it I'll leave it to people like you who have been there and done it,successfully, and s-c-i-e-n-t-i-f-c-a-l-l-y...................
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 1212FBGS on November 17, 2012, 05:12:43 AM
Well…. We arrived at the meeting tonight to a sold out house… it seems everyone and their brother was there to speak on one issue or another… Quite a bit of discussion on the vintage ignition issue, the “top chop” issues, and some door handle and trim on roadster issues…. I tryed to act interested and even acted like i was taking notes just in case Mr Warner looked over at me..... But Mr. Warner and President Lattin were busy doing a fine job keeping the momentum going on a busy night right up to the point when the floor was handed over to Mr. Butler to handle the Bike side of the rule changes…. Well, ya win some and ya loose some…. I gotta say this frame rule thing was without a doubt the most uncomfortable debate of the evening… You could see people kinda kringe, lower their eyes with an overall "oh crap here it comes" attitude take over the atmosphere... Oh, in case you guys don’t know, all of the Christmas toys for the Kids of El Mirage were stolen… A hat was passed around and over $500 was raised to help buy the kids some Christmas joy….. Ok back to my story….. Well Van had his say, then Mr. Cook raised some very good questions that engineer John Bjorkman answered quite well… Tom Evans made probably the first very passionate, strong argument I have ever seen him make….. Fortunately against the change, he spoke well… Then a motion was made to pass, but with no second…. Some more discussion made from Russ Eyers and Mike Watters…. Things were dragging along I was hoping there wasn’t going to be a second… I was hoping, praying President Lattin would say  ”we don’t have a second, the rule change is dead, let’s move on” then out of the back came the dreaded ”Second”…… Crap!….. Crap! Now I was gonna have to stand up and say something….. I don’t know if you have ever been in this kind or situation, but for me it is very uncomfortable and difficult to stand up in front of people you respect and have to argue a point against your friend….. Even if you win, you lose…. I spoke my mind and opinion… Then it goes to vote… I will add that Van and those behind this rule change have a good heart. They think and wish the safety of all the competitors and are just as passionate of their views just as I am of mine…. The vote was close, 9 to 8…..  The rules as originally written in 1971 and unchanged through the 2012 rule book will remain the same for 2013…..  I would like to say I’m happy to announce this, but it raises a question in the back of my head that asks if I did the right thing…. Did I put my friends in possible danger? Did I put myself in danger cuz I race one of them damn things too? Some very good points have been brought up from both sides over the last few weeks…. What if?....  When all was said and done, I made a suggestion to the board that a committee should be formed to evaluate this question of chassis safety… Can what we are doing be made safer? A streamliner is supposed to be the pinnacle of design and innovation… Man and the best machine possible…. Are we restricting and holding ourselves back with archaic steel tubing? Today we won the battle, and today I lost 2 friends….
Kent
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Jon on November 17, 2012, 05:54:02 AM
Thanks for the update Kent.

Hopefully your friendships are strong enough to handle this difference of opinion over time.

Regards
Jon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Dakin Engineering on November 17, 2012, 07:31:35 AM
Would the author of of this proposed rule change please stand up and identify themself?

Sam
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 55chevr on November 17, 2012, 08:24:56 AM
I know the Transport Workers Union executive board for some number of years.  Most are friends.  We all take our differing responsibilities seriously. As a management employee, I sit opposite them in negotiations and there are some very heated debates relating to issues.    Each side is standing for what they believe is right. We never let it come between us as men.  I would hope the SCTA board is similarly constructed.

Joe
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Koncretekid on November 17, 2012, 08:51:49 AM
....  When all was said and done, I made a suggestion to the board that a committee should be formed to evaluate this question of chassis safety… Can what we are doing be made safer? A streamliner is supposed to be the pinnacle of design and innovation… Man and the best machine possible…. Are we restricting and holding ourselves back with archaic steel tubing? Today we won the battle, and today I lost 2 friends….
Kent


Bravo, Kent,
That the rules may change in the future is probably a sure thing.  But at least it now appears they will be changed on the basis of recommendations from a design committee and now just a couple of individuals. As you said, we all want safety, but not change for change's sake.


Tom
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: salt on November 17, 2012, 10:07:49 AM
Looks like the proposal to change the vintage ignition rule failed, too.

Willi
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: fredvance on November 17, 2012, 10:43:06 AM
Kent, thanks a lot for A. Keeping us informed of this situation. B. For taking the bull by the horns and working hard to prevent this rule from happening. It would be a shame to have all the current MC streamliners, and those under construction made illegal. Good job.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on November 17, 2012, 10:45:29 AM
Kent, you pulled out of your comfort zone and made a case for what you believe, and you did it with a learned and insightful recognition of the potential consequences of your stance.  That takes more sack than riding a bike for a hat.

Good on ya.

"I would like to say I’m happy to announce this, but it raises a question in the back of my head that asks if I did the right thing…. Did I put my friends in possible danger? Did I put myself in danger cuz I race one of them Dodge things too? Some very good points have been brought up from both sides over the last few weeks…. What if?....  When all was said and done, I made a suggestion to the board that a committee should be formed to evaluate this question of chassis safety… Can what we are doing be made safer? A streamliner is supposed to be the pinnacle of design and innovation… Man and the best machine possible…. Are we restricting and holding ourselves back with archaic steel tubing? Today we won the battle, and today I lost 2 friends…."

This argument will continue, and it probably should.  What you want, what your fellow racers want, and even the two friends you believe you lost want, are the conditions to do what we do well, safely, and with the best knowledge available.  You fought the good fight, and the good fight always raises the tough questions - the soul searching ones.  They're seldom black or white.  

Oh, in case you guys don’t know, all of the Christmas toys for the Kids of El Mirage were stolen… A hat was passed around and over $500 was raised to help buy the kids some Christmas joy…..  

Where can I direct a contribution?
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: dw230 on November 17, 2012, 11:38:03 AM
Thanks Chris. Take a look at the back of your rulebook. Send donations to the El Mirage Ladies Aux.

As most of you know I was at the meeting last night. Kent is being modest with his report. Kent presented a very intelligent, professional and passionet plea for common sense. Tom also stepped up and spoke his passion based on his many years of experience and well researched facts from previous m/c streamliner accidents. I truely believe that if these two had not spoken up when they did the rule may have passed.

Let us all hope that this subject will carry forward to a sucessful conclusion. Just because the vote went the way some hoped for last night the issue is not dead. If you or a mate has solid engineering background please offer your help to make the rules better for all. Do not wait until 2 weeks before the rules vote next year to express your displeasure. That stratgey does no one any good.

Yours in safety,
DW
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 1212FBGS on November 17, 2012, 12:48:39 PM
lets send some love to these kids...

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Christmas-is-Stolen-from-El-Mirage-179403881.html.

Thanks for the kind works guys.... Sometimes its not easy "taking one for the team".... I’m not always right, just ask my ex-wife.... all I ask it to be proven wrong.... and when you do, both of us are gonna tell everyone we know.... I absolutely agree with Dan, the cat is out of the bag and we owe it to ourselves and our racer friends to find out if improvements need to be made.... the knowledge can be beneficial to cars, bikes, and the organization... The SCTA has taken 1 hit in the past (Pete Dean fatality) and would be foolish to think we won’t eventually take another... At the minimum this information would give our defense some credibility if we can answer "yes, we have reviewed our minimum standards for design" I am happy to say I plan on building my "little Liner" next year and I am looking for someone who can do some CAD design analysis.... Let’s continue on and get some good data guys...
Kent
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Jon on November 17, 2012, 02:05:04 PM
I've started to talk to Woody about FEA on my frame, if I get it done the analysis will be available to this Committee and forum.

There is a few problems I see:

What is the answer we're looking for?, in Aus to register a custom built car frame it must pass specific Beaming and Torsional tests.
Are they good indicators of a frame deforming in an impact at ??? point from ??? angle at ??? speed for this vehicle which weighs???, not sure....they sure as hell are important to stable handling though IMHO

 There is exactly the same amount of Streamliner Bike cage designs as there is Streamliner bikes.

How does the results from bike A relate to bike B which is a different weight and design?

Not trying to sound negative and I am keen to help, I'm just not sure what the answer is we're looking for yet.

regards
Jon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: SaltPeter on November 17, 2012, 05:13:42 PM
Thanks to those that stood up and put forward the case that you do not make changes of this type without proof and more importantly, including those effected.

I think this is good news in a whole lot of ways. If a better way to improve Safety can come out of this, then that's a great thing.

Safety needs to be based on properly researched information.

But the first thing, like Jon said, is to decide what it is that is trying to be achieved, no use putting forward solutions when the Goal or the Problem is not clearly defined.

For mine, the major Goal for any Motorsport Organisation is to make sure that the Safety Rules (in this case for Land Speed Vehicles) are first not fundamentally flawed and then developed to keep up with higher levels of performance and available Technologies, whether that's Tube Size, Fire control, Seat Belts, whatever.

In this case, the question for me was, will a larger diameter Roll Cage Tubing actually improve the safety of those racing a Motorcycle Streamliner?

I did not see any proof that it would do this.

So if this is the Goal or the intention, then make sure that the basic design requirements are what is needed, to then design a Safe Motorcycle Streamliner, no more and certainly no less.

Looking around at the direction that Motorsport Safety has been heading for a while, I'd say it's making sure the Driver is contained in a "Safety Cell" that not just stays intact, but reduces the forces that can cause Fatal injuries to the occupant.

It's not much good having a Vehicle that stays completely in one piece, but the Driver inside is not.

 :cheers:
Pete from Oz
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Heliophile on November 17, 2012, 11:10:06 PM

There is little doubt that “stronger is better” for survival of the *vehicle*.  But what about the *pilot/driver/rider*?  "Stronger" usually means also "stiffer," which may increase the forces and g-loads on the pilot during a crash, as summarized below.

I am a mechanical engineer.  I did some strenth of materials caclulations that show that the proposed larger tubing is about twice as strong in both tension and bending.  It is also roughly three times as stiff in both tension and bending.

Next I did some dynamics calculations that indicated that this stiffness increase could increase the force and g-load on the driver by a factor of perhaps 1.7, a 70% increase.  This obvioulsly may represent a significant additional risk of pilot injury.

Am I completely sure that this is correct.  NO, I am not; my calculations have not been verified by peer review.  And of course the force and g-load on the pilot/driver/rider (2 or 4 wheels) depends on the entire chassis construction, not just the roll cage, and also on accident circumstances.

I believe that the motivation for the proposed rule change is/was to make motorcycle streamliners safer by requiring larger roll cage tubing.  I also suspect we have not heard the last of it, which IMHO is appropriate. 

I favor the idea of a discussion group to research this question.  Physics and engineering analysis is one tool.  Another is analysis of historical accident data: in how many accidents have roll cages collapsed or sustained damage, how many accidents have resulted in an intact roll cage but a damaged pilot, and how many have resulted in no damage to either the vehicle or the driver.  Those results, along with data on vehicle design, speed, weight, etc., should be informative.

I totally understand the the discomfort of taking your courage in both hands and arguing against friends and officials.  I am certain that a desire to see imroved safety in land speed racing is the underlying motivation for this entire discussion.

In the interest of full disclusure, I am building a motorcycle streamliner, and have attended three Bonneville events as a spectator with open eyes and ears, but I have not made the first trip down the salt.  ALso, I may not get back to this site soon.

Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Heliophile on November 18, 2012, 10:07:46 AM
Oops, I did not state my calculations summary quite correctly.  Mea culpa.  A senior moment (I hate them!).  What I should have said about the calculations is this.

Stiffness and strength are two different design aspects with different consequences.  Stronger may be better, but stiffer may not be. 

The 1.625" x .12" tubing, compared to 1.25" x .09" tubing, for equal loading and member length, and for various loading types (axial, bending, torsion, buckling), is roughly:

twice as strong (stress ratio ranges from 1.72 to 2.22 for various loading types),

up to   nearly 3 times as stiff (deflection ratio ranges from  1.72 to 2.94; the larger number is for bending, torsion, and buckling),

with section area and weight per length both about 73 percent larger. 

The estimate of possible increase in force and g-load on the driver was made using a factor of 3 increase in stiffness to get an idea of what the impact load increase could be.

The calculations are for strainght sections of tubing.  Curved sections require more complicated calculations that are part of what should be done to shed further light on the issue.

Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Tman on November 18, 2012, 10:46:25 AM
Welcome Larry!

Trent
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Peter Jack on November 18, 2012, 11:44:51 AM
Hi Larry. I went into your web site and really enjoyed the tour. That's a really interesting looking bike. I really liked your slightly different approach. Good luck with the rest of the build and we'll look forward to your appearance on the salt.  :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

I'm one year ahead of you and probably a few senior moments ahead of you. They're frustrating but we still seem to be able to work around them most of the time. I think we've always had some of them and we just called it absent mindedness!

Pete
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Dean Los Angeles on November 18, 2012, 12:54:22 PM
If you watch the videos of Indy car crashes in the 60's there was no frame deformity, but the driver died anyway. The frames were so strong that all of the crash forces were transferred to the driver.

Highway crashes were the same thing. The crash forces were transferred to the driver.

In both cases deformable structures and decelerable padding or air bags were designed to allow the forces of deceleration to be transferred away from the driver.

Making the streamliner frame is the same challenge. I can't help but laugh when I picture the Buddfab 50cc liner with an 1 5/8 frame.

Both Indycar and NTSA have money to study the situation. Indycar designs have to be crash tested and all of the cars have G force data recorders.

Kent is mostly correct about his description of the crash attitudes for streamliners. At least we don't have walls to hit. The angle of hardest impact can't be determined, so you have to design for any angle of impact. I think SCTA has done a reasonable job in recommending roll cage and safety requirements.

I don't know how these were determined. I suspect that other forms of racing were used as a model. I really doubt SCTA spent any money in engineering studies. Correct me if I am wrong.

The person responsible for the safety of the driver is the person that designs the streamliner. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of the strength of the structure and crash scenario simulations should be computed.
The result is not only the strength calculations of the frame, but the G force loading on the driver.

Ok, raise your hand if you have that kind of money.

Looking at the VERY suspect frames that have shown up over the years with crappy welding and you name it, it is very responsible that SCTA has made the rules that they have.

I'm very much with Kent and others in my disrespect for rule making that has gone on in the SCTA. Mike Manghelli has made statements to me that were, well, unbelievable.

You still have to work within the system if you want to run SCTA events. Keep it in mind that no one is getting a paycheck, and the spectator dollars are zero. Everything we do, we get to pay for it.

This rule was not in the best interests of the safety of the vehicle. Engineering opinions have been posted on this thread that make it clear to the non-engineer that a 60's Indycar frame would be the result.

Ok, so what is the best path to recommend here? Low buck, possibly dangerous, self designed vehicles? High buck engineered solutions that rule out 99% of us? Or SCTA trying to find a solution that will cover every situation through rule making.

Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Heliophile on November 18, 2012, 07:45:09 PM
Agghhhhh, I hit some button and lost my message.  My fingers on the keyboard are like untrained rats.  Is there an undo button?

Land speed racing is still amateur and resonable affordable.  I would llike to see it stay that way, as no doubt all of us would.  The folks who make it possible spend a ton of their time and resources to make it possible, and certainly deserve our thanks and respect.  Rule making in particular is not easy.  That said, it must be responsible, which we can work toward if we pool our experience and knowledge.

I am under the impression that drag racing roll cage requirements are in stages, according to elapsed time allowed or something such.  I was going to look into it.  Amybody know already?
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Jon on November 18, 2012, 10:32:22 PM
Please resist the urge to make this complex.
If the cage doesn't deform the g force transmitted to the rider is all but exactly the same regardless of the tubing size.

The cage and harness needs to keep us inside the cage, the cage needs to keep other bits out.

Can't be much more complex than that.

jon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Plmkrze on November 19, 2012, 07:28:35 AM
Please resist the urge to make this complex.
If the cage doesn't deform the g force transmitted to the rider is all but exactly the same regardless of the tubing size.

The cage and harness needs to keep us inside the cage, the cage needs to keep other bits out.

Can't be much more complex than that.

jon

BINGO!  We have a winner.

B.S. in Physics!
which means you make the coffee when around PHD's!!!
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Tman on November 19, 2012, 09:52:52 AM
Please resist the urge to make this complex.
If the cage doesn't deform the g force transmitted to the rider is all but exactly the same regardless of the tubing size.

The cage and harness needs to keep us inside the cage, the cage needs to keep other bits out.

Can't be much more complex than that.

jon

BINGO!  We have a winner.

B.S. in Physics!
which means you make the coffee when around PHD's!!!

Only because the PHds have a hard time tying their shoes in the morning, let alone making something as complex as coffee! :-D
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: wobblywalrus on November 19, 2012, 11:13:44 PM
A comment from the engineering community.  An engineer can certify something was subjected to a test, the test was done according to guidelines, and the sample passed or failed.   Example, any of the American Society of Testing and Materials tests.  The engineer can attest that something was designed using an established procedure.  Example, the American Association of Transportation Officials Load Factor bridge design method.  It is hard for a engineer to say something is "safe."  This is too subjective.

Usually we start a job like this with a literature search.  First we look for examples of how other organizations deal with the exact same problem.  Then, we look at how others deal with similar issues, such as the aviation community.  This is just the beginning.

A set of draft guidelines is worked up and representatives of the affected folks like racers, engineers, regulators, legal types insurance people, are all are on the committee.  The draft is hammered on until enough people are happy then it is adopted.

The designer and builder uses these guidelines and the engineer certifies it was done.  Te engineer is certifying that "accepted industry practice" or "state of the art" guidelines were used if anything goes wrong.  This does not absolve the engineer from liability due to poor judgement or incompetence.  It does provide enough protection for the engineer to practice and be covered by insurance.

In this rule making process this should be considered.   The system of a few goofy rules and a bunch of amateur builders does not seem too bad when compared to the demands of professional involvement.       
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Steve Walters on November 20, 2012, 12:16:46 PM
This seems to be a good place to add this experiance into this thread, It has been a good thread, and I am glad the law of commen sense has prevailled, thanks to Tom & Kent.

Years ago I was attending an NFPA class on 70-E, electrical safety.  The room had about 100 students in it, and about 30 of them were engineers.  Two or three of them could not keep there knowledge to themselves, disrupting the class and frustating the instructor.  When we all came back from lunch, with out any guidance or directions the engineers ended up on one side of the room, and the rest of us on the other.  The instructor was able to focus on the side of the room without the engineers, and it was a good learning experiance.   :-)

Steve   
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: jimmy six on November 20, 2012, 12:25:58 PM
From working with all types of engineers in my 47 years in the bulk power plant industry I have learned one very important thing.

I want 12 of them on my jury. One can't make a decision how could 12....I rest my case......JD
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Peter Jack on November 20, 2012, 02:22:14 PM
I preface this by saying that I know some really good engineers who are also really good racers, fabricators and mechanics.

On the other hand I would say that the majority of the engineers and designers that I've worked with are just as liable to casually ask me, the weldor, "how would you approach this?" and then the next thing I know my idea becomes theirs.

I tend to say on a fairly regular basis that there are lots of engineers that can design the wrench but there are only a few that can use it!

Pete
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Graham in Aus on November 20, 2012, 05:52:40 PM
This thread is drifting a little, but now the pressure has gone from the roll cage tubing issue I’ll add my bit of thread drift and maybe contribute to the ‘Engineers’ discussion.....

Alec Issigonis the brilliant designer of the Mini and Morris Minor had a hand’s on helper, William ‘Jack’ Daniels. In the 20 or so months following the Suez Crisis and the explosion of sales of ‘bubble cars’ in Europe Issigonis came up with the ideas for the Mini, but Jack made it work!

Jack’s famous quote was “Issigonis provided the inspiration, but I provided the perspiration!”

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on November 20, 2012, 09:58:39 PM
“Issigonis provided the inspiration, but I provided the perspiration!”


Success has a lot of parents, but it's the midwife who boils the water and slaps the baby on the ass.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Jon on November 20, 2012, 10:11:31 PM
Didn't mean to start an engineer bashing session, I normally only do that at work sorry.

I'm following the rules.
I'm going to do beaming and torsional tests on my frame.
I'm building using Cremona principles as much as possible.
I'm keeping the span lengths short-ish to get maximum effectiveness of the tubing.
I'm making sure that the front wheel can't come in for a play if it gets upset.
I'm sheeting the whole riders compartment frame for torsional strength, keeping me in and other bits out.

If there was some useful analysis that could be done to I'd interested to know what it is and what the outcome I would be looking for.

Thanks
jon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: wobblywalrus on November 20, 2012, 10:15:03 PM
Jack Daniels helps me, too.

Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 1212FBGS on November 21, 2012, 12:20:47 AM
Jon..
Torsional tests..... hummmm remember you have 2 wheels... the front has a contact patch the size of a quarter... and the rear has a contact patch of 2 quarters... oh, they are both on a slippery surface.... you don't have a wide front or rear end like a car acting like a leverage arm... whats gonna twist yer chassis?
kr
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Jon on November 21, 2012, 02:02:28 AM
I'm not sure Kent.

I've ridden some 1970s bikes that had liquorice frames that were prone to the odd weave or shake, something I'm pretty determined to avoid.

Thanks
jon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 55chevr on November 21, 2012, 07:04:01 AM
Jon,
I remember well riding worked Kawi Z1-s hard and you could feel the frame flex in a corner.  After we added gussets and linked the top tubes it was much more controllable.  It was more lack of design than materials.

Joe
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Peter Jack on November 21, 2012, 10:35:34 AM
It was more lack of design than materials.

Actually it was a lack of materials in the design! I added the bracing to six or seven of them. The customers always came back raving that it was a brand new bike.

Pete
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Plmkrze on November 21, 2012, 11:07:52 AM
Please, ladies and gentleman don’t bash the engineers, scientists’ nor the well intentioned rules makers!

There are some very interesting videos of Bonneville crashes (in vehicle) on U Tube.  Please, look at these videos and concentrate on the moments of impact. Those moments are what you build for! Those moments are extremely violent. Sure, you don’t want the vehicle to “grind off” all its bits as it is sliding and injure the occupant. But as the vehicle is sliding or “flying” it and its occupant are doing nothing more than moving in a straight line (vector). If this movement alone was dangerous, humans would not be able to travel! Even by bicycle!

What hurts (especially at higher velocities) is when the vehicle/occupant tries to change the direction of the forward movement (vector)! What a “good” design does is allow that at the moment of impact (change in vector) the energy of this vector change is changed into something that doesn’t injury the occupant. OR, the changes duration (total time) is kept to a minimum. Optimally both!

Does the material that the vehicle is constructed from have a bearing on the ability to safely decelerate the occupant without sustaining life changing or life ending injuries. Sure it does, but to say that bigger will improve safety of the occupant in a sudden deceleration event does not take into account ALL the other variables that occurred prior to the event, the variables during the event and the variables after the event.

From what I have seen, a MC streamliner tends to “pencil roll” and then grind to a halt. It looks like a lot of “little hits” of very short duration in rapid succession.
 
Now, granted I would not want to try it, but it seems to me that bigger bars are not going to increase rider safety in that type of deceleration event.  :|
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on November 22, 2012, 02:58:37 AM
I'm late into this discussion.  Don't often get time to get deep into the threads here.  But I spent all evening reading and rereading this thread. 
What worries me here is that an SCTA safety rule almost got passed by a more or less democratic process without any good technical backing to support it.  Shame on club leadership representatives for not challenging this.  It's time for real engineering. 
One above reply pleaded "Please resist the urge to make this complex."  Well I'm sorry friend; but it is complex. 
If you want to analyze it FEA is just the first building block.  The rest of the problem involves elastic/plastic deformation of a complex multicomponent structure with various and complex dampening properties and its dynamic response to a complex pattern of random impacts in a 3 dimensional field.  If you want to view the results of this kind of engineering at the state of the art level Look at JPL's video simulation of the Mars Rover landing.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/XRCIzZHpFtY?rel=0
  That inflatable cushion likely had that kind of analysis behind it.  And I'm pretty sure that no matter what computer tools they had they still put the Rover on a shaker table and "wrapped it" in accelerometers.  So none of us can afford that kind of engineering.
 But don't forget that real engineering sometimes has only objective analysis of past experience as a practical part of its tool box.  It took a few well versed and experienced outsiders to raise the experience "flag" in this streamliner roll cage issue.  Why wasn't this a part of the SCTA rule change process.  Even our dysfunctional national Congress has committee hearings where (usually but not always) scientific and technical issues relevant to new legislation get a hearing.
So as inconvenient as it may be for the voting representatives of the SCTA organization I feel it is essential that they be well versed in the best reasonably available technical information and issues relevant to any major change in safety requirements before they exercise a final vote on a rules change.
Ed Weldon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Jon on November 22, 2012, 05:28:32 AM
Thanks for your reply Ed

What do you suggest we do then that is achievable with a non NASA budget?

When I said "don't make it complex" I was referring to the conversation around different G loadings from different tubing size.
Unless the roll cage deforms there is negligible energy dissipation, the G force loading on the rider is exactly the same regardless of the tubing size.
I'm not aware of anyone building a crumple zone into a tubing rollcage.
The balloons on the Mars lander are high tech crumple zones.

To assess whether the roll cage will deform in an impact would involve doing an almost infinite number of FEA style drop tests at different impact points, impact angles and velocities.

I'm a self taught mechanic, I mentioned FEA as it is the only tool that I know of other than beaming and torsional tests that is achievable with any LSR budget, any guidance would be good.

Cheers
Jon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: rgn on November 22, 2012, 06:05:42 AM
Jon, I don't think that at 100 or 200 or 300 mph there is anyway of guaranteeing that tubing size or any other precaution will cause providence to prevail.  

The only way to make land racing truly safe is to stop participating in it.  

There will be examples of injury or worse from the simplest of incidents.  And miraculous recoveries or better from the worst.  

There is a point that you have to accept that a sport such as this is dangerous, and the consequences for participating in it sometime fatal.

It's what you would call a low risk high consequence sport.  No amount of tubing will unfortunately protect you from a bad scenario.



Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: bak189 on November 22, 2012, 11:22:18 AM
No, we are not building another streamliner........However, the one I build back in the early 1990's also got a lot of flack from SCTA/BNI regarding the roll-cage....so we pulled it and put it in the Barber museum....so this roll-cage thing is nothing new.  In regards to SCTA/BNI changing and/or making new rules I have been fighthing this since 1978 with our LSR sidecars......they don't understand what they are all about, however, this does not stop them from making very restrictive rules and class changes and no amount of talking or letter writing has ever worked for me...................So we race the BUB event....no car people....only a couple of people to talk to if you have a rules or tech problem... with no car clubs board....when they don't understand something they ask for input from the racers
involved....At one time SCTA/BNI was the only game in town, but this is no longer the case, there are many other options, but as to why most of these new org.'s choose to follow the SCTA/BNI rules is something I don't understand, can't they do their own thinking????......OK. I am done.....B.B..   
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 8 on November 22, 2012, 01:34:07 PM
   and how many of you are actually PROFESSIONAL CHASSIS BUILDERS  and that is what you do for a living and have built numerous vehicles that have SURVIVED SERIOUS CRASHES  ???????????
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Glen on November 22, 2012, 01:54:36 PM
8 unless you ID yourself I doubt you will get answers to your question. SCTA and LSR in general have a very good survival rate.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 8 on November 22, 2012, 02:20:18 PM
You all seem to have an opinion on what works, but do any of you REALLY KNOW
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Freud on November 22, 2012, 02:55:43 PM
Does that question mean that You do know?

If so, give the answers.

FREUD
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Glen on November 22, 2012, 03:00:01 PM
Do you, no two crashes are the same, no two cages are the same, impact points are different. every accident is investigated and examined and taken apart to determine what failed. This is done by a selected group, photos taken, complete notes taken, parts are removed and tested to determine if it was the fault. This process takes time just like any accident. New rules are written if necessary. People have made changes after passing inspection, changed drivers that didn't fit properly from another driver. A few years ago a lakester went through inspection and crashed on the first run. The driver was injured and the reason was he added a 5" piece of foam as a seat cushion and when it flipped he came loose in the cockpit. He was lucky that he wasn't hurt more then he was. Im was on the Emergency response team for 20 years and have a complete history of the incidents during that period. This includes other LSR events besides SCTA/BNI.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Jon on November 22, 2012, 03:00:43 PM
+1 in what Freud said.

It may appear I'm being a tosser but I am actually wanting to gain some knowledge here, please enlighten us.

jon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: SaltPeter on November 22, 2012, 03:26:52 PM
Hey 8 old mate

No professionals in this sport, we're all back yard bodgers here. If you know a thing or two could let us know just type real slow so we can understand you.

Crocodile Pete from Downunder :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Dr Goggles on November 22, 2012, 04:13:53 PM
do I smell a rat-liff?
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Freud on November 22, 2012, 04:16:48 PM
Goggles        + + +

FerD
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on November 22, 2012, 05:51:12 PM
Yup -- I was thinking about the same but waited for someone else to say it first.  Thanks, Dr. G.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Glen on November 22, 2012, 06:54:01 PM
Look on the member ship list, name is there, I think he lives near ElMirage
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Nortonist 592 on November 23, 2012, 12:58:44 AM
   and how many of you are actually PROFESSIONAL CHASSIS BUILDERS  and that is what you do for a living and have built numerous vehicles that have SURVIVED SERIOUS CRASHES  ???????????

I'm not but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.  So if you need any help give me a shout.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: SPARKY on November 23, 2012, 07:17:42 AM
 :cheers: LoL
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: JustaRacer on November 23, 2012, 08:43:38 AM
  and how many of you are actually PROFESSIONAL CHASSIS BUILDERS  and that is what you do for a living and have built numerous vehicles that have SURVIVED SERIOUS CRASHES  ???????????

Professional chassis builders have not had a 100% success record, see SCTA, NHRA, SCCA, NASCAR, F1, etc, guys.  Even with a million bucks, you don't get a perfect outcome each time.

I've survived 3 potentially fatal accidents.  One was at 120 mph.  I have hundreds of stitches and 10lb of titanium in me. That doesn't make me an expert, it makes me a crash test dummy.  Not sure I'd like to up the ante, but I tell you it happens REALLY slow.  One trick for the MC guys is NOT to get up off the ground until a minute or two (perceived).  You think you are stopped, but you aren't and you go flipping through the air.







Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 55chevr on November 23, 2012, 12:37:44 PM
 Just who is    "8" ?
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Glen on November 23, 2012, 01:04:50 PM
Joe, look at my post 109
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Rex Schimmer on November 23, 2012, 01:51:27 PM
Dean mentioned the old story about the 50s Indy roadsters being so strong that they could be crashed one day and running the next, with a new driver, and that the previous driver was killed because the chassis was too stiff. Actually if you happen to look at the 50s Indy cars you will see that "roll bars" weren't even used until the late 50s and then they were usually lower than the drivers helmet and had no fore and aft bracing. Also helmet technology was just starting to be explored and all of the drivers wore open faced helmets and things like seat belts were just starting to be used much less any kind of shoulder belts or Hans devices or roll cage shock padding or carbon fiber full coverage helmets. The drivers were not killed by the stiff chassis they were killed because their head was exposed to high levels of shock. We have discussed the idea of controlled crush zones before and I would ask anyone to define the loads that this concept would be designed to, to ensure that as the cage deforms to adsorb crash energy it does not also crush the occupant. If you look at off road trucks and WRC rally car chassis you will see the true state of the art in tubular chassis design and these vehicles are not designed to crush, they are designed to protect the occupant(s) from outside intrusions and keep the drivers head from seeing shocks that could be fatal. A properly designed SCTA cage should be built to be strong and stiff and prevent any type of failure that could be caused by the cage collapsing on the driver and it should have sufficient room for a Hans device and proper high impact padding to protect the drivers head and a proper seat belt, shoulder belt arm restraint and seat system to retain the driver inside the safe zone of the cage.

Rex
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on November 23, 2012, 02:21:46 PM
....What do you suggest we do then that is achievable with a non NASA budget?
Cheers,  Jon

Jon - I'm trying real hard to stay out of the technical discussion area here and stick to philosophy.  The best answer I can give is to carefully examine what has been proven to work in 2 wheel streamliner frame design (ack's posting is a start).  Then use that as a basis for your design.  The more you understand how and why it worked the better you wil be equipped to make the minor changes you need to make in that proven formula to fit your project.
Contrary to what most people think 99+ percent of all building work in our world is done that way.  We built an entire civilization by "copy and tweak".  We tend to forget that in our zeal to accentuate the creative accomlishments of the great inventors and builders of our history.
And this applies not only to physical things but also the great social and political structures of our world.
When there is great risk, material or human welfare, in making a change from the norm a deeper understanding of the hows and whys is called for.  When anyone chooses to ignore the need for knowledge to support a change, expecially one that is to become mandatory "code" and substitutes a political process to force the issue it is time for the people to cry "FOWL".
This applies to clubs as well as nations; anything that operates under a structure of rules.
 Kent (Reply #61 by 1212FBGS) stood up and spoke for many of the rest of us and his position prevailed.  A good thing.  There is much to learn from this.
Ed Weldon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Freud on November 23, 2012, 02:51:18 PM
With as much as each side, and there are two sides to this, has at stake in this discussion it seems to me that there needs to be two studies

done. One major medical bill could be much larger than the amount of money invested  in an engineering study that would be much more valid

than the conclusion that either group would conclude w/o any engineering background.

If two studies seem too much spent on one problem......then just agree to share the cost among the people that this problem relates to.

Remember....racing is not cheap and this could just be one of the related costs.

The other possibility is that a college engineering project could be done for someone's advanced degree requirements.

The way this "discussion" is going a suitable conclusion seems unlikely.

I'd start with Ohio State Engineering school. They are involved and do have a realistic idea regarding what happens on the salt.

With the urgency that the SCTA has placed on this topic a request from them with some engineering school may more likely be heard

than the way it is now.

I've seen and fotograffed bike 'liner crashes and no fatality has occurred in them but it would be nice that when the inevitable crash occurs

the pilot would be capable of walking when it's all done.

There is a year to work on this and still meet the Rules Committee's time line.

Lets discuss this possibility rather than letting a layman's opinion be the basis for the rules change.

There is also the possibility that a totally different type of chassis could be used. Racing technology has progressed in

other forms of racing that has left a tube chassis in the archives. Hot Rod methods could be updated by newer materials and designs that

are used in many other racing venues. Indy cars and F-1 have been using updated methods for years.

If it's too expensive, just tell that to the wife of a racer that she has to attend to for the remainder of his life or that she takes

the children to the cemetery to visit him..

Get a study done.......................

FREUD

Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Moxnix on November 23, 2012, 03:09:57 PM
http://deltawing.squarespace.com/news/category/video

Scroll down to Nissan DeltaWing Road Atlanta Crash Video

I've follwed the DeltaWing car's development for some time, in consideration of a cycle car design.  The video clip from their website of the crash at Le Petit LeMans this year says something about the tub design.  The car was rebuilt and raced to 5th place the next day.  Didn't the Italian liner Gus-Gus use monocogue aspects in its design?

http://deltawing.squarespace.com/images/petit-le-mans-wednesday-testing-gallery/

Scroll down for stills of car wreck.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on November 23, 2012, 03:46:24 PM
.......... A properly designed SCTA cage should be built to be strong and stiff and prevent any type of failure that could be caused by the cage collapsing on the driver and it should have sufficient room for a Hans device and proper high impact padding to protect the drivers head and a proper seat belt, shoulder belt arm restraint and seat system to retain the driver inside the safe zone of the cage. Rex
Rex - You and others are right as far as you go.  But the devil is in the details.
For one thing, by your statement, the transition to 1-5/8 tubing for 2 wheel streamliners would cause no harm other than throwing thousands of hours and dollars of past and ongoing construction effort into the trash heap.
What has generally been left out of this discussion is the character of impact events in a crash.  The stiffer you make the anvil and the hammer head the better.  But we don't want anvils here.  We want the chassis to soften the blow rather than sharpen it.  Here the workpiece is the driver, not a piece of steel.  But too soft a roll cage will deform either elastically, plastically or both and in the worst case rupture.  So a compromise is needed.
You workshop guys:  Look at all the hammers in your shop from the softest rubber mallet to the hardest ball pein hammer and think about why it is the way it is.  Every time you open a product package or a shipping package take a close look at it and think about the way it's designed.  Are you tuned into the idea that the real shock absorbing function an a car chassis is in the springs and pneumatic tires and that the shock absorbers are simply dampeners?

The following is for the engineer or physics trained folks among us.........
You guys who like myself suffered through some formal engineering education, especially the physics and calculus part: Were you as confused and suspicious as I was about the apparent dichotomy between energy and momentum? Or the equivalence of impulse and momentum?
Or the fact that a perfect sharp impulse (time=0) contains every frequency of vibration?
If your work is in the world of dynamics you know this stuff pretty well.  Please speak here.
If like the rest of us that kind of math is long forgotten and like me you add an experience based safety factor for impacts to your stress calculations and rely more on what happens on the test stand then understand why I try not to sound like I am any kind of expert.
I remember in the old days many engineering schools had a fun test project for all the mechanical engineers.  You formed up in teams and each team designed a box to hold a fresh egg.  They built it and dropped it from a high window in the engineering building onto a concrete sidewalk.  Build a box got you a "D", "C" if the box didn't break. "B" if the egg inside didn't crack.  And "A" if you mathematical analysis of what happened was correct.
Oh yeah, some other thoughts here.  Drag out your old metallurgy or materials science book.  Look at a stress-strain tensile test diagram for low carbon steel and consider where the most initial energy absorption takes place. (realizing that the elastic energy is given back to work in continuing cycles of vibration until finally dissipated as heat through some kind of dampening). 
Look in your strength of materials book (mine was Timoshenko, which dates me) at the subject of beam bending and especially column buckling under compression. Consider the effect of gussets on individual members of a roll cage
Note on the Mars Rover the balloons were full of gas.  Gases are incapable of sustaining plastic deformation.  It's entirely elastic.  Not also that a balloon flattens at the impact point slowing the time of impulse.  This is slowed and dampened even further if the soft surface of the ground is reshaped.  The dynamics of a "pencil rolling" streamliner have much in common.
Ed Weldon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on November 23, 2012, 04:17:59 PM
I'd start with Ohio State Engineering school. They are involved and do have a realistic idea regarding what happens on the salt.
With the urgency that the SCTA has placed on this topic a request from them with some engineering school may more likely be heard than the way it is now. ...................
There is a year to work on this and still meet the Rules Committee's time line.
Get a study done.......................FREUD
Freud - Getting some university interested in some scholarly effort with respect to the engineering issues in land speed racing is something I and likely others have thought of before but didn't articulate to a sufficient audience.  Now there is serious impetus and interest in our community.
But I suspect there is a lot more work to be done than can be accomplished in a year by one person or even an undergraduate project group.  This is the stuff of graduate study and multiple phD dissertations or at least peer reviewed engineering society papers.
A while back I was involved in judging undergraduate projects by students at the University of Santa Clara Engineering school for several years.  This problem is far beyond what even the best of those teams and their faculty advisors could accomplish in a year.  Even given Ohio State's experience with LSR projects I doubt they could concentrate their resources to get much done in a one year time frame.  And the math and computer program development involved is probably way above what can be expected from undergraduates.  Not to mention the field work and empirical testing needed to mathematically characterize the other half of the problem, namely the surface conditions of the "race" course.  A pavement based study project would very likely be considered incomplete for application to natural playa environments.
Still, a start is needed somewhere.  And this one is beyond what any of us are able or willing to undertake. ................. Ed
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: fredvance on November 23, 2012, 05:55:24 PM
If I am not mistaken  much of the design, and maybe fabrication,  of Sam Wheeler's streamliner was done by graduate students, I think , at a college in California.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on November 23, 2012, 06:14:44 PM
If I am not mistaken  much of the design, and maybe fabrication,  of Sam Wheeler's streamliner was done by graduate students, I think , at a college in California.
Fredvance--  Super!  If this was done by graduate students as part of their acedemic work they certainly wrote up detailed thesis type reports and perhaps even scholarly papers as part of their degree requirements.  This material should be on file and reasonably available for responsible study.   Who here is in a position to make inquiries and try to get both the reports and perhaps even interviews with the students and faculty advisors involved?  Generally such people welcome distribution of their work and its use in real world projects as well as reference material for future research.  The exception might be where dissemination of information has intellectual property or pending patent considerations.  Doesn't seem to likely in this case.
Ed Weldon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Plmkrze on November 23, 2012, 06:16:46 PM
The worse case, the vehicle get airborne and plants either the nose or tail. Are the vehicles being built for this type of deceleration event? Everyone think of a lawn dart.

I believe Ed said it, about it is a Total package, Seat, Hans, belts, padding in the correct places etc, etc etc.

I am new to this . But, please not the Proster. I have read some of that trivel.

Lets not reinvent the wheel here.

LSR vehicles are just that, a vehicle in motion. LOTS of studies have been done, look at the design changes in F1, indy and yes Neckcar!

The dymanics of the deceleration event have not changed.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Plmkrze on November 23, 2012, 06:19:56 PM
If I am not mistaken  much of the design, and maybe fabrication,  of Sam Wheeler's streamliner was done by graduate students, I think , at a college in California.
Fredvance--  Super!  If this was done by graduate students as part of their acedemic work they certainly wrote up detailed thesis type reports and perhaps even scholarly papers as part of their degree requirements.  This material should be on file and reasonably available for responsible study.   Who here is in a position to make inquiries and try to get both the reports and perhaps even interviews with the students and faculty advisors involved?  Generally such people welcome distribution of their work and its use in real world projects as well as reference material for future research.  The exception might be where dissemination of information has intellectual property or pending patent considerations.  Doesn't seem to likely in this case.
Ed Weldon

This is it!! Way to go Ed!
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on November 23, 2012, 08:49:04 PM
So who knows Sam Wheeler well enough to ask him if he will share the names of the university and their participants in his project?  Even just the University whereby a contact with the Dean of Engineering or whoever would know about this or be able to provide other assistance?
Ed Weldon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 8 on November 23, 2012, 08:55:41 PM
Now that's what was needed, you guys started figureing out how to come up with the necessary information to make them better :-D :cheers: :cheers:
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Jon on November 23, 2012, 10:16:17 PM
And you are yet to contribute something constructive 8..... You seemed to imply that you knew the answer.

One problem is there are exactly the same amount of Streamliner Bike frame designs, weights and bike dimensions as there are Streamliner bikes.
A study on Sam's riders compartment wouldn't really relate that well to Ack Aattack for example.

I'm not sure if Sam's bike frame was designed by the Uni, I think they may have only contributed on the aero.
I'm pretty sure that if it they were involved in the frame and the calculations were available Sam would have had them at the first vote meeting and the emailing we were doing with the Motorcycle Tech committee before the vote.
Either way I'm pretty sure the SCTA Motorcycle Tech committee requested him to put an extra tube in.

On another note:
Ross (triple engine Kawasaki bike liner build) and I were talking last weekend, pour in seats would be nice to incorporate into a build, is the 1" foam rule only related to the back and butt area of a seat or the sides as well.
I understand how the rule came about, not trying to change it.

jon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Freud on November 24, 2012, 01:01:51 AM
As I remember Sam dealt with Cal Tech. Maybe just on the aero package.

FREUD
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Nortonist 592 on November 24, 2012, 01:13:19 AM
Now that's what was needed, you guys started figureing out how to come up with the necessary information to make them better :-D :cheers: :cheers:

Just what is needed.  Now somebody will come up with a rule proposal that all frames must be built by university engineers.  No exceptions.  Followed shortly by a spec chassis design rule for all cars and bikes.  8,  I don't know who you are and could care less.  LSR is a sport where you can dream you can build something faster than the next guy and (within the SCTA class rules) build it.  Not all of us have unlimited bank accounts to engage a university or engineers and there are some of us who want to build it our way.   So do us all a favor and butt out.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on November 24, 2012, 02:33:08 AM
Just what is needed.  Now somebody will come up with a rule proposal that all frames must be built by university engineers...... and there are some of us who want to build it our way.   So do us all a favor and butt out.

Nortonist - Sorry to read how you feel.  If enough of you motorcycle guys want me also to butt out with my engineering I will.  I have too little life left to waste it on talk that folks don't want to hear.   
BTW I've never advocated nor will I support any mandatory professional involvement in the design or construction of LSR cars beyond OEM origin of certain vehicles or parts for classification purposes.
Ed Weldon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Nortonist 592 on November 24, 2012, 03:15:09 AM
I'm sorry I feel this way too.  For me LSR is the last bastion of the backyard dreamer/builder.  The NHRA used to be "innovation in action".  Now the classes are spec classes.  Every top fueler and funny car is identical.  No "ideas" allowed.  The last thing I would want to see is for you to butt out.  Or not share your knowledge which I am sure is considerably more than I have.  My Dad used to tell me only a fool refuses to listen.  My concern is that you wind up with a spec frame design with no variations allowed.  I should say that I really shouldn't be posting on this thread for the reason that when it comes to LSR I am a bottom feeder.  But I love to see those amazing machines and wonder at the mind that conceived them.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 55chevr on November 24, 2012, 10:25:58 AM
N --- You are right  ...  the last thing we need is bracket racing land speed events.

Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Freud on November 24, 2012, 12:50:00 PM
All I was suggesting was guidance from knowledgable people.

Not a dictatorship.

FREUD
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: stwheeler on November 24, 2012, 12:54:52 PM
As I remember Sam dealt with Cal Tech. Maybe just on the aero package.

FREUD

Correct, as far as I know all Cal Tech did was to use Sam's  streamliner as a class project for an aero package and used the wind tunnel.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Freud on November 24, 2012, 03:11:28 PM
Quote
all Cal Tech did was to use Sam's  streamliner as a class project for an aero package and used the wind tunnel.

I'd say that is a huge advantage as compared to most builds......two or four wheelers.

FREUD
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Rex Schimmer on November 24, 2012, 03:26:24 PM
Ed Weldon said in his post #119 "Rex - You and others are right as far as you go.  But the devil is in the details.
For one thing, by your statement, the transition to 1-5/8 tubing for 2 wheel streamliners would cause no harm other than throwing thousands of hours and dollars of past and ongoing construction effort into the trash heap."

Ed I am sorry if you took my post as a support of the SCTA proposal to change the motorcycle streamliner tubing specs to 1 5/8 tubing. I am in complete agreement with most of the people on this site that the 1 5/8 tube proposal was a knee jerk reaction by the SCTA rules committee and not well founded on engineering or empirical data.

I am some what at a lose as to the thinking that going to an engineering school to have this type of design done by a group of engineering students is a good idea. I spent 4 years getting an engineering degree and 45 years learning to be one. Yes they can do the Solid Works, the FEA and analysis but only if people that have experience in the landracing field can provide them with the parameters that define the problem. Having worked with a number of young engineers I find many of them wanting to "redesign the wheel" on projects when solutions already exist and their lack of experience does not allow them to realize this. Using a university engineering student group to do this work is a great idea but it will require some close overseeing to make sure that they stay on task. I know that Jon Bennett is planning to have Woody do an FEA analysis of his frame design and with Woody's years of practical experience and knowledge this is the type of analysis that I would have real faith in to provide real data that is applicable to Jon's project..


Rex

Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Jon on November 24, 2012, 04:29:18 PM
I'm still drawing my frame up in CAD, I'm very slow on CAD (slow in a lot of other ways too but another story).

I have two problems;
What is the question I'm asking?
My understand of FEA is not great, I understand beaming & torsional tests, also understand they may not be the greatest indicator of the effects of a point impact load.

How does that relate to a bike that isn't identical to mine?

I keep saying don't complicate it and stick by that statement.

IMHO the role of my riders compartment cage along with every other LSR vehicle cage is very simple:
"NOT DEFORM ENOUGH TO LET THE RIDER COME IN CONTACT WITH THE GROUND"

Crumple zones etc can make the job of the cage easier, it is not the job of the cage to crumple though.
Designing crumple into a cage is not an area we should entertain I believe.

Keeping the rider/driver less damaged inside the cage is the role of Helmet, Harness, arm restraints, HANS, roll bar padding, helmet movement distances, good fitting seat (hence my question about pour in seats) etc.

If the cost is reasonable and the outcome useful I will ask Woody to do analysis on my bike and provide the info to all.
I'm still struggling and I believe we all are to fully understand the question.

Facts as I understand them:
Every motorcycle liner has fallen over, most at a decent pace.
There is no documented cases of a rider in a cage that complies with the current rules being injured because the cage deformed.
What is the question again?
jon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: SaltPeter on November 24, 2012, 06:40:32 PM
That's right Jon, I don't know of any Motorsport that has a collapsible Roll Cage.

The current trend I mentioned was that the Driver Roll Cage/Safety Cell stays intact and there are energy absorbing structures around and within this indestructible compartment.

Meanwhile the fact is this.

We already have safe M/C Streamliners running right now for the Speeds that are being achieved.


Anyone building a M/C Streamliner can learn from them and that's what is and has happened. To me we don't need to change that.

Right now looking at how vehicles are being constructed, is the welding up to scratch, are there enough gussets, is the Cockpit clear etc. needs to be the Priority.

Also providing accessible guidance, when and if needed, during the design and build stage. Providing Tech Inspections before we run at an Event to solve any issues that might need fixing.

This would then at least minimise the chance of a Safety failure if an incident happens. So by the time the any of us are at the Event all Vehicles have had the best chance of doing the Job that they were designed to do.

I would think it's as the Speeds go up we need the research/Data ( and there are many types of research and Data collection) then can incorporate any extra Safety measures into those Vehicle designs. Being ready for the future was probably what is at the heart of the Proposal that started this.

A lot of people simply did not want to throw the Baby out with the Bathwater. And I really believe that would have been the impact of the Tube Proposal.

Pete
One of the Short Men
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on November 25, 2012, 11:37:16 AM
.......
Ed I am sorry if you took my post as a support of the SCTA proposal to change the motorcycle streamliner tubing specs to 1 5/8 tubing. I am in complete agreement with most of the people on this site that the 1 5/8 tube proposal was a knee jerk reaction by the SCTA rules committee and not well founded on engineering or empirical data. ...............

 I know that Jon Bennett is planning to have Woody do an FEA analysis of his frame design and with Woody's years of practical experience and knowledge this is the type of analysis that I would have real faith in to provide real data that is applicable to Jon's project..
Rex

Rex-- Sorry I seemed to misunderstand you.  What I meant was that we must look beyond the simple issue of roll cage strength.  My position on this thing is that without the issue of "springiness" of the frame/cage being addressed the technical review of the new cage proposal is incomplete.  My anedotes about hammers, anvils and the Mars Rover don't seem to be connecting. 
So I will put it bluntly to all:  To support a stronger and clearly more rigid frame design (like 2.8 times more so) I will need to be convinced that the elastic flexibility of the 1.25/.095 tube construction is not a significant contributor to the softening of crash impact shocks.  This in the same manner as automotive springs and pneumatic tires reduce shock the effects of roadway irregularities.
To that end I'd suggest Woody, in his FEA analysis make note of the elastic deflections under assumed forces (and directions) of various points in frame as well as the places stresses above yield point of steel.  Hopefully this will provide come insight into the character of "springiness" of the cage.   But short of an ability to determine the effective forces created by ground impacts on an elastically flexible frame the results of an FEA study will be inadequete.
In other words prove to me that 1-5/8/.120 wall tube construction will make the crash shocks worse while making no important improvement in the structural strength of the cage.
BTW, anyone know what CAE software Woody will use?  Cosmos, ANSYS or some other?
Ed Weldon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on November 25, 2012, 12:31:05 PM
The current trend I mentioned was that the Driver Roll Cage/Safety Cell stays intact and there are energy absorbing structures around and within this indestructible compartment.
....................
Meanwhile the fact is this.
We already have safe M/C Streamliners running right now for the Speeds that are being achieved.

Anyone building a M/C Streamliner can learn from them and that's what is and has happened. To me we don't need to change that.
Pete   One of the Short Men

I generally agree with Pete.  Learn how and why something works before you blindly change it.  There is all to much ignorance of this lesson to the dismay we all have with many "new and improved" consumer products.  Sadly, the brownie points seem to go those change artists.  The old fart who counsels "it works fine; tell me why should we change" is quickly forgotten.

I'd like to make one more point.  There is a lot of misunderstanding about how "energy absorbing structures" work both among lay people and engineers.  They slow the application of force to the structure in addition to absorbing energy.  Slower application of force means lower acceleration levels.  That's "G" forces.  That means less "g"s that the cushioning around the driver, helmet, padding, etc. has to stop from reaching the driver's head.
Ed Weldon

Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Plmkrze on November 25, 2012, 05:20:36 PM
Has there been a crash of a M/C streamliner that has deformed the cage/chassis enough to injure its occupant? And this deformation and injury are related to this smaller tubing. As I understand it the answer is no. If the answer is no, then why "align" the M/C streamliners with the Car Streamliners? Leave it alone. If it must be changed, then show us the studies that prove the change is necessary. Do not put it upon the M/C folks to go on the defensive and protect their investments with the studies to prove that the change is not necessary. Do not propose a change based on what is good for geese is good for ducks too!

True, both fly, but ducks are smaller!


BTW, is it just me, or do others see the irony of this thread.  Guys and gals get ON motorcycles and haul ass. With just helmets and leathers! Nobody bats an eye. But, make a M/C streamliner and suddenly folks feel a sense of social responsibility and get worried about your well being. Hypocrisy? Not for me to say, YOU have to make that judgement. 
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on November 25, 2012, 06:53:12 PM
Finally - I found it.  On the home page of this site (www.landracing.com) there's a sidebar featuring "EZ Hook News".  I haven't read through it just now - will later - but maybe you'll find more information about Sam's bike than you already knew.  And maybe you'll find out if he did have some form of outside help in designing it. 

I thought I knew that the article(s) was/were in here -- just couldn't remember where they got put.  Thanks, Bob Clancy, for helping me find 'em.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Glen on November 25, 2012, 07:41:16 PM
I started keeping a incident list in 1984 per Jim Lattin's request. The following is what type motor cycle was involved.This is at El Mirage & Bonneville
 8. Stream liner Motorcycle  , none had a roll bar/cage failure. There were injuries to some of the riders.

19. Sit on motorcycles 19, all had some type of injury some at over 250 mph. 

1. Side Car  1 rider injuried , towing accident on return road.

NON SCTA/BNI incidents at other venues
 1. Streamliner  Fatal,  Cage & roll bar did not fail
 3. Sit on 3 Fatalities
 1. Side car minor injuries
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: 55chevr on November 25, 2012, 08:00:26 PM
That is an interesting data base ... did you save any of the specifics?


Joe
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: makr on November 25, 2012, 08:25:59 PM
Do not put it upon the M/C folks to go on the defensive and protect their investments with the studies to prove that the change is not necessary. Do not propose a change based on what is good for geese is good for ducks too!


Why?

If I was a smart leader I would put it on the guys trying to go fast to prove to me why they think they are safe without me doing a thing. Rule change seems a very effective means to that end...
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on November 26, 2012, 12:17:06 AM
If I was a smart leader I would put it on the guys trying to go fast to prove to me why they think they are safe without me doing a thing. Rule change seems a very effective means to that end...

A smart leader will know when his enterprise has a monoploy and when it doesn't.  The difference between the two has a profound effect on how to treat the customers. 
SCTA might have started as a club but it is now a business.  And it has competition.
Note that it provided fine service to several thousand paying customers at Speedweek.
Ed Weldon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Steve Walters on November 26, 2012, 01:27:52 PM
The SCTA is a busness,  :-o.  B..ll S..t, There might be a few people that think that way, but all of the Land Speed Associations are venues for Hot Rodders and Gear Heads. 

They started out as a means to enjoy their sport, and evolved into what they are today, and they are not a busness, and they are not in competion with each other.  Most of the volunteers work at all the events, and a lot of the racers run at all of the events. 

A few bad eggs, within the Associations  might think that they are in competition with each other, but that is true with every group that exsists.

The only thing in commen to a busness, is the Venues need racers to survive, and the racers need the Associations. If it was a busness then they would surely think at the board meetings lets shut down, El Mirage, and the finals.  Instead of how can we get more racers to run at these events. 

MHO.
Steve           
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Steve Walters on November 26, 2012, 02:11:33 PM

Gee's !, I'm sorry Ed, when you get old and retired, ya feel like your not contributing any more and then you get oppinionated.  Your busness quote kind of struck a hard spot in me, cause thats a problem we are having right now, there is a few bad eggs out there trying to put one organization over the other, even resorting to sabatage.  I guess its like that, with everything in life, not a lot I can do about it.

Steve       
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on November 27, 2012, 12:50:18 PM
Steve - You and I could easily kill a desert sunset and a pile of firewood sharing war stories about our esperiences with American "business" and how enterprises sink to a level that matches that description.  I do think the SCTA has a ways to go and plenty of good roadblocks on that road.  Hundreds if not thousands of "owners" some of them noisy like those of us who play in this forum helps.
Interesting thing about this roll cage discussion.  It's had me exploring the subject and I've learned some new and important things that relate to my own project. Kinda amazing what we can learn from each other.
Ed
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: superleggera on November 27, 2012, 01:39:02 PM
Historical questions but somewhat relevant to this thread discussion: (to educate a few of us who haven't raced for decades on the salt nor have all the answers)

1) When did the current rules go into effect relating to roll cage tubing diameters? (1971 or 1974?)  What predicated the change then?

2) Has there been any structural changes in tubing, roll cage design or "cockpit area" via the rulebook since then? (ignoring belts/fire bottles updates)

3) From what I understood, the biggest change for the motorcycle streamliners was the front wheel diameter obstructing forward cockpit vision -- thus retiring many streamliners years ago.  Does anyone have more info on how/why the rule was changed then?
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Koncretekid on November 27, 2012, 01:49:04 PM
You know, before we bash the crap out of SCTA and other organizations, you have to realize that if the SCTA and AMA/BUB didn't exist, and didn't prepare a massive comprehensive set of rules and regulations that allows us to go out and play crazy on the Salt Flats, we wouldn't be able to do so.  The BLM would see to that.  And consider that the rules that have evolved give us a measure of comfort that the machines we are building are built to a standard that has proven to work in the past.  

I've been involved as a board member with other organizations and I can tell you that it is not fun when you start getting threats from lawyers who have clients that take exception to your decisions and you are told that you, as a board member, can be held liable for the decisions of the entire board, if it is found that such decision was negligent in any way.  The current regulations have shown that vehicles that are built in compliance with these regulations are relatively safe, and the proof is that some of them have crashed horrendously, and drivers/riders have survived, and that the structures have not been found to be deficient.

However, as to the currently suggested rule change to increase the size of the tubing for cages for motorcycle streamliners without evidence that this change would make them any safer, would be folly.  Imagine if the rule were to be implemented without such evidence, and someone were to be seriously hurt in a subsequent crash, regardless of the reason.  How long do you think it would take for a bunch of scumsucking lawyers to pick up on the change, and use it along with some of the comments made here that such a change might subject the driver to higher G-forces, to sue the organization for making such a change.  What defense would SCTA have to prove that said change was made to make the vehicle safer? I think that in this case the proper course of action would be not to try to fix it if it ain't broken.

This is not to say that SCTA and others should not be continuously reviewing their rules as speeds increase and to review each and every incident to find out the causes.  They have to be seen as showing due diligence to protect themselves.  But they shouldn't make changes unless those changes can be shown to make our vehicles safer.

Tom
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Dynoroom on November 27, 2012, 04:06:51 PM
You know, before we bash the crap out of SCTA and other organizations, you have to realize that if the SCTA and AMA/BUB didn't exist, and didn't prepare a massive comprehensive set of rules and regulations that allows us to go out and play crazy on the Salt Flats, we wouldn't be able to do so.  The BLM would see to that.  And consider that the rules that have evolved give us a measure of comfort that the machines we are building are built to a standard that has proven to work in the past.  

I've been involved as a board member with other organizations and I can tell you that it is not fun when you start getting threats from lawyers who have clients that take exception to your decisions and you are told that you, as a board member, can be held liable for the decisions of the entire board, if it is found that such decision was negligent in any way.  The current regulations have shown that vehicles that are built in compliance with these regulations are relatively safe, and the proof is that some of them have crashed horrendously, and drivers/riders have survived, and that the structures have not been found to be deficient.

However, as to the currently suggested rule change to increase the size of the tubing for cages for motorcycle streamliners without evidence that this change would make them any safer, would be folly.  Imagine if the rule were to be implemented without such evidence, and someone were to be seriously hurt in a subsequent crash, regardless of the reason.  How long do you think it would take for a bunch of scumsucking lawyers to pick up on the change, and use it along with some of the comments made here that such a change might subject the driver to higher G-forces, to sue the organization for making such a change.  What defense would SCTA have to prove that said change was made to make the vehicle safer? I think that in this case the proper course of action would be not to try to fix it if it ain't broken.

This is not to say that SCTA and others should not be continuously reviewing their rules as speeds increase and to review each and every incident to find out the causes.  They have to be seen as showing due diligence to protect themselves.  But they shouldn't make changes unless those changes can be shown to make our vehicles safer.

Tom

That just might be the point the SCTA was trying to make. Why do we allow different tubing sizes for vehicles that travel the same speed? Some demented legal eagle might just ask that question if something happened right now, maybe?
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Stan Back on November 27, 2012, 04:36:22 PM
"When did the current rules go into effect relating to roll cage tubing diameters? (1971 or 1974?)  What predicated the change then?"

I'm looking at my 1970 Rule Book (24 pages including 1 blank for notes) and there are no Motorcycle Rules, or records.  The front page says -- Motorcycles at Bonneville are subject to the jurisdiction of the American Motorcycle Association and follow the rules contained herein (none specifically to motorcycles) only in part.  Inquiries about motorcycle competition should be directed to Earl Flanders, AMA Referee.

Apparently there wasn't a "change" after that -- just an inclusion in the years to follow.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Koncretekid on November 27, 2012, 06:49:17 PM

That just might be the point the SCTA was trying to make. Why do we allow different tubing sizes for vehicles that travel the same speed? Some demented legal eagle might just ask that question if something happened right now, maybe?

You might well be right.  Damned if you do and damned if you don't.  By now, SCTA might be seeking legal help to advise them.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: manta22 on November 27, 2012, 09:42:05 PM
Are our lives now ruled by lawyers? Maybe Shakespeare was right!

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: SaltPeter on November 27, 2012, 10:02:17 PM
Hi Dynoroom

Different tube size I would imagine, have to relate to the Weight/Mass of a vehicle.

If you need X size Tube for 1 ton vehicle at 300mph why would you also use the same size tube for a 2 ton or a 3 ton vehicle at 300mph? Wouldn't that tube need to be bigger?

If the tube size had to go up for for vehicles weighing no more than a ton, then vehicles two or three times the weight would also need a bigger tube, using the rationale put forward.

That was as simple as it got for me.

What happened is proof to me that there is a review process in place in the SCTA, it's just a bit clumsy that's all, hopefully this can be improved as well.

Pete from below :cheers:
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on November 28, 2012, 12:41:01 AM
I think that in this case the proper course of action would be not to try to fix it if it ain't broken.
This is not to say that SCTA and others should not be continuously reviewing their rules as speeds increase and to review each and every incident to find out the causes.  They have to be seen as showing due diligence to protect themselves.  But they shouldn't make changes unless those changes can be shown to make our vehicles safer.
Tom

That just might be the point the SCTA was trying to make. Why do we allow different tubing sizes for vehicles that travel the same speed? Some demented legal eagle might just ask that question if something happened right now, maybe?
[/quote]

"Why do we allow different tubing sizes for vehicles that travel the same speed?" 
Please don't treat this as a rhetorical question.  Take it as a real question and sit still for a real answer.  The answer is that there is a significant difference in weight between the two.
With all due respect to the accomplished racers and other thinking members of our sport..... I understand how many of you have career war stories of encounters with inexperienced and downright ignorant engineers.  But it is time you opened your minds and listen to the small number of your lot that were trained as engineers and know a bit more about the laws of physics than you do.  We have more and more LSR projects running over 300 and knocking on the door 0f 400 and very little practical engineering knowledge (born of analysis, tests or accident experiences) of what goes on up there.
"Speed kills" ........... Well is that so?  Seems to me that you can travel all day long in a jet airliner at 550 mph without significant bodily injury. 
No, it's energy that kills.  When in the form of kinetic energy, which is in simple terms weight times speed squared, it has the ability to destroy human tissue if turned loose in a crash to find places where we don't want it to go.  And the more rapidly that energy dissipates to heat the higher the forces involved. 
A 5000 pound roadster has twice the kinetic energy at 200 mph as a 2500 lb lakester, 4 times that of a 1250 lb bike. In a crash situation non-aero energy get scrubbed off by the tires in a spin.  But some combo of partly rectangular front aspect profile, high center of gravity, ground roughness or softness and tire failure can make it go airborne and quickly "roll up in a ball".  Coupes/sedans add a fifth tendency to go airborne, their aerodynamics.   The attitude of the car on landing has a lot to do with the duration of the impact with the ground.  The shorter the duration the greater the impact forces on the cage. 
Modern streamliners and narrow tread lakesters lacking the shape shortcomings of the stock body tend to "pencil roll".  A more or less square front aspect profile is not going to roll as smoothly as a round profile.  All other factors being equal "square" will scrub off kinetic energy faster but is more likely to bounce or otherwise depart from true rolling and accentuate the shock of a final stop.
At this point we look to the cage to protect the driver by neither crushing him or allowing parts of his body to get outside its "defense perimeter".  But we also would like to see the cage have just enough flexibility to slow the application of forces from outside and thereby lessen the shocks and "g" forces to a point where the rest of the cushioning around the driver can do its job of shock isolation.  And note that this "flexibility in the vehicle structure consists of both components that deflect and then spring back to their original shape and parts that are permanently deformed as well.
An important unknown to me is how important "springiness" or elastic deflection as we engineers call it in taking the peaks off of crash shocks pointed at the driver who is already surrounded by various "padding" structures and restraints.  I somewhat suspect they are trivial, but suspicions, while they might provide paths for inquiry, do not make satisfactory results to an engineering analysis.
So back to kinetic energy.  It is my feeling that gradiation in crash event protection built into our machines should be based on the expected kinetic energy and the potential rolling stability of the vehicle.  The idea here being that the longer it rolls the lower the rate of energy disipation and therefore more moderate shocks to the driver instead of fewer severe shocks. But until we have more good engineering information on the subject we should be guided by what experience and knowledge we already have.
I still think there are lots of good engineering research projects here, both undergraduate and graduate level.  Exactly the kind of thing engineering students do for degree credit.  I would specifically exclude any work that involved design of even the smallest part of a competitor's vehicle.  We are just talking of research to characterize real world crash event conditions, the response of vehicle structures and safety systems to those events and explore tools for analysis of the crash behavior of vehicles and their components.  You guys who know kids in school studying mechanical engineering or work with young engineers who may still be going  to night school for a graduate degree or finishing up and undergraduate degree program see who you can interest in this.  Do you have an engineer or scientist friend helping with your race effort who works in the analytical side of the business and has knowledge of the subject of dynamics or mechanical vibrations and maybe computer resources at hand?  How about someone with an FEA resource that can model the strength and deflection or either 2d or 3d structures?  Maybe there is someone out there who can move this forward.
Ed Weldon

 


Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Dynoroom on November 28, 2012, 01:15:32 AM
I think that in this case the proper course of action would be not to try to fix it if it ain't broken.
This is not to say that SCTA and others should not be continuously reviewing their rules as speeds increase and to review each and every incident to find out the causes.  They have to be seen as showing due diligence to protect themselves.  But they shouldn't make changes unless those changes can be shown to make our vehicles safer.
Tom

That just might be the point the SCTA was trying to make. Why do we allow different tubing sizes for vehicles that travel the same speed? Some demented legal eagle might just ask that question if something happened right now, maybe?

"Why do we allow different tubing sizes for vehicles that travel the same speed?" 
Please don't treat this as a rhetorical question.  Take it as a real question and sit still for a real answer.  The answer is that there is a significant difference in weight between the two.
With all due respect to the accomplished racers and other thinking members of our sport..... I understand how many of you have career war stories of encounters with inexperienced and downright ignorant engineers.  But it is time you opened your minds and listen to the small number of your lot that were trained as engineers and know a bit more about the laws of physics than you do.  We have more and more LSR projects running over 300 and knocking on the door 0f 400 and very little practical engineering knowledge (born of analysis, tests or accident experiences) of what goes on up there.
"Speed kills" ........... Well is that so?  Seems to me that you can travel all day long in a jet airliner at 550 mph without significant bodily injury. 
No, it's energy that kills.  When in the form of kinetic energy, which is in simple terms weight times speed squared, it has the ability to destroy human tissue if turned loose in a crash to find places where we don't want it to go.  And the more rapidly that energy dissipates to heat the higher the forces involved. 
A 5000 pound roadster has twice the kinetic energy at 200 mph as a 2500 lb lakester, 4 times that of a 1250 lb bike. In a crash situation non-aero energy get scrubbed off by the tires in a spin.  But some combo of partly rectangular front aspect profile, high center of gravity, ground roughness or softness and tire failure can make it go airborne and quickly "roll up in a ball".  Coupes/sedans add a fifth tendency to go airborne, their aerodynamics.   The attitude of the car on landing has a lot to do with the duration of the impact with the ground.  The shorter the duration the greater the impact forces on the cage. 
Modern streamliners and narrow tread lakesters lacking the shape shortcomings of the stock body tend to "pencil roll".  A more or less square front aspect profile is not going to roll as smoothly as a round profile.  All other factors being equal "square" will scrub off kinetic energy faster but is more likely to bounce or otherwise depart from true rolling and accentuate the shock of a final stop.
At this point we look to the cage to protect the driver by neither crushing him or allowing parts of his body to get outside its "defense perimeter".  But we also would like to see the cage have just enough flexibility to slow the application of forces from outside and thereby lessen the shocks and "g" forces to a point where the rest of the cushioning around the driver can do its job of shock isolation.  And note that this "flexibility in the vehicle structure consists of both components that deflect and then spring back to their original shape and parts that are permanently deformed as well.
An important unknown to me is how important "springiness" or elastic deflection as we engineers call it in taking the peaks off of crash shocks pointed at the driver who is already surrounded by various "padding" structures and restraints.  I somewhat suspect they are trivial, but suspicions, while they might provide paths for inquiry, do not make satisfactory results to an engineering analysis.
So back to kinetic energy.  It is my feeling that gradiation in crash event protection built into our machines should be based on the expected kinetic energy and the potential rolling stability of the vehicle.  The idea here being that the longer it rolls the lower the rate of energy disipation and therefore more moderate shocks to the driver instead of fewer severe shocks. But until we have more good engineering information on the subject we should be guided by what experience and knowledge we already have.
I still think there are lots of good engineering research projects here, both undergraduate and graduate level.  Exactly the kind of thing engineering students do for degree credit.  I would specifically exclude any work that involved design of even the smallest part of a competitor's vehicle.  We are just talking of research to characterize real world crash event conditions, the response of vehicle structures and safety systems to those events and explore tools for analysis of the crash behavior of vehicles and their components.  You guys who know kids in school studying mechanical engineering or work with young engineers who may still be going  to night school for a graduate degree or finishing up and undergraduate degree program see who you can interest in this.  Do you have an engineer or scientist friend helping with your race effort who works in the analytical side of the business and has knowledge of the subject of dynamics or mechanical vibrations and maybe computer resources at hand?  How about someone with an FEA resource that can model the strength and deflection or either 2d or 3d structures?  Maybe there is someone out there who can move this forward.
Ed Weldon
[/quote]

Two things Ed.

One that's not my quote, not sure how it got mixed up....

Two, I agree with your concept and would never stop anyone from building a LSR vehicle the way you discribe. However your last paragraph would most likely make it nearly impossible for a home grown racer to ever finish their project as the lack of people willing to help or as I'm sure others have found from time to time the engineer tends to never finish the side projects as other more interesting or profitable items come his way. (Yes I understand this would be for school credit.)
Not to mention, racing as a hole is usually more involved from an engineering standpoint than most young engineers grasp at first. Yes, they can do it, but when?

The rules the SCTA puts forth are not as arbitrary as many would have you believe.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on November 28, 2012, 01:43:15 AM
Mike - Sorry I got the quote thing mixed up.  Not the first time I had trouble with nested quotes.
I guess I'll just fiddle with modeling ideas on this subject for a while and look for some young engineer to inspire.
Ed
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Koncretekid on November 28, 2012, 08:33:20 AM
Are our lives now ruled by lawyers? Maybe Shakespeare was right!

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ
I hear that half the lawyers in the world live in the U.S., like it or not!

Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Buickguy3 on November 28, 2012, 09:27:57 AM
   Ya, and we've sent most of them to Washington, D.C.

    Doug  :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Dynoroom on November 28, 2012, 09:57:04 AM
Mike - Sorry I got the quote thing mixed up.  Not the first time I had trouble with nested quotes.
I guess I'll just fiddle with modeling ideas on this subject for a while and look for some young engineer to inspire.
Ed

Ed,
   don't get me wrong, please get more young engineers involved. I think in the end my point was one of practicality, at least at this time.

Mike
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Plmkrze on November 28, 2012, 10:43:44 AM
Folks, one thing we all must grasp is that the human body can only take so much acceleration/deceleration force before permanent injury and death results.

What we as racers design for is to dissipate and shorten the time that the body is subjected to these acceleration/deceleration forces. 

What I find interesting is that in LSR you find “No professionals in this sport, we're all back yard bodgers here.” (Saltpeter) that use tried and true engineering practices. The use of arches, circles, triangulation, gussets etc. etc.!!

Just look at Ron’s build. Longitudinal members for strength in the X axis, which ties nicely into the “wagon wheel” main bulkhead (behind the rider). This builds strength in ALL three axis. Then, when this is all “skinned” with the steel sheet it produces more strength.

AND this is done with smaller tubing! It is back to the "Total Package" concept.

Ron I like your build! I would ride it if I could fit in the cock house!

Not too bad for a “backyard bodger”.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on November 28, 2012, 11:40:18 PM
Relative to the engineering exploration of this subject:
I got in an email conversation with one of our forum participants.  I've suggested trying to get the engineering folks in engineering education world interested in projects for students that involve exploring technical issues related to LSR.  One question is how to do that.  You have to find the right person.  Some excerpts from that conversation follow:
The ideal individual is a mechanical engineering professor at the nearest university engineering school.  These guys are always looking for ways to motivate their students and get them hooked up with real world engineering.  Get on a university's website and look up the names of the mechanical engineering faculty.  Especially young professors involved in the area of dynamics structure design and machine design.
Find one who will join you over some good beer to talk about something that his students might find very interesting and provide them with engineering project work they can get motivated over.  You can help several ways.  One is to help them understand the problem.  Another is to make it easy for them to see and touch the problem in person.  Third you can help them do necessary field work (like studying the surface characteristics of one of more of our desert racing sites and see various vehicle designs "in the flesh"   Fourth you can help them set up lab experiments and build inexpensive measuring tools for experiments. (like cheap fixtures for dial indicator measurements of chassis deflection, load scales out of hydraulic and air cylinders and pressure gauges, a small drag sled to measure traction coefficient of friction on the salt or other running surfaces, a drop hammer for salt surface penetration tests, scale models for dynamic movement observation, etc.) Few universities these days have the shop facilities as good as you have in your own workshop for building an LSR machine.
BTW, research into vehicle crash behavior has all kinds of applications outside LSR.  I see it relating to unmanned aircraft and spacecraft retrieval,  design of off road vehicles,  equipment for extreme sports,  construction of roadways,  behavior of moving objects during natural disasters accompanied by wind, earthquakes, land and snow slides, many common falling object damage situations and the design and protection of shipping packages.  So this is not exactly a "niche" area of engineering inquiry.
I think there is a lot of possibility of good results in a kind of a win-win partnership you can get working with an academic on something like this.
If I had the bandwidth in my life to do this I would.  But trying to keep up with a pile of personal responsibilities and find time to complete my last chance in life at fielding a landspeed car (the Golddiger lakester) is about all I can handle.
I honestly think the landspeed racing folks need to get a better handle on the hows and whys of the applicable technologies and the interest assistance of acedemics helps a lot.  The participation of Ohio State and BYU and maybe others I don't know of is great.  We sure can use more of that.
Ed Weldon  #923

Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Moxnix on November 29, 2012, 02:44:36 PM
My January 2013 Sport Rider magazine arrived in the post today.  Very good article on Sam Wheeler and the E-Z Hook liner, and enough pictures to help see what's going on under the skin.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on November 29, 2012, 09:52:43 PM
Monix - I'm not a 2 wheel guy so could you answer a question for me? ..... Is Sport Rider a magazine I can find on a well stocked newstand?  I'd like to get a copy of that issue/article to study.
Ed Weldon
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: bvillercr on November 30, 2012, 01:29:17 AM
Just google e-z hook streamliner, plenty of info out there. :cheers:
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Moxnix on November 30, 2012, 01:40:08 PM
Ed, I think so. 
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: edweldon on December 01, 2012, 02:21:04 AM
Bvilleercr and Moxnix -- Thanks guys. The two videos on the e-z hook website are real interesting.  The CNC machined rear frame structure is really interesting.  Fills me full of ideas I can't afford. If I had my oldest son's skills with Solidworks and Cosmos FEA and the experience to produce machine code with the likes of Mach3 and easy access to a 3 axis CNC mill and a year or so to learn it all before I get too old to drive a lakester and .......  or if I were 20 years younger.......
Ed
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: Moxnix on December 01, 2012, 06:58:40 PM
Ed, the rear subframe and belt drive pulley system caught my eye, too.  This is a liner that experienced front tire failure at +/- 300 mph some years back, slowing from a 350 run; the chute kept it from flipping/rolling.  No injury, no major damage.  Real impressive.  Looks like the tubing choice was good.
Title: Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
Post by: nebulous on August 22, 2013, 10:13:19 AM
Design inovation will soon be gone! We will then only need enough money to buy horsepower!