Landracing Forum Home

Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => Build Diaries => Topic started by: Stainless1 on October 03, 2017, 09:59:00 PM



Title: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 03, 2017, 09:59:00 PM
Well I have been thinking about putting a new frame in the Bockscar for several years.  Pork Pie started working on new canopy and top drawings to eliminate the engine bumps.  The old frame held up quite well for one that was out there for the first time 41 years ago.   The helmets outgrew the cage we installed in 1984.... we redid it... but they seem to be headed that way again, so the cage will grow a little with the top. 

Since the accident I have been trying to decide if we really want to build another car from scratch... and spend half my retirement money... with the salt in such a questionable condition.... and I have decided no!

That's no to spending half the retirement.... I think I can do it on 30%... going to reuse as much of the old car as possible.  Will it be ready for SW18? Couldn't tell ya

I have to start this by saying thanks to my first sponsor Sparky Bill Smith, he gave me the 20 ft long 29 inch wide build table he had stashed in his back yard.  I picked it up after WoS on my way home.  It needed to be mobile, so I put wheels on it, then it needed to be stable so I put retractable legs on it so it won't rotate unless I want it to. 
Started welding and squaring up fixtures on it today so I can put some pipe on it soon


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on October 03, 2017, 10:51:22 PM
YES!
I'll pick up some lubricant for you . . . :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Speed Limit 1000 on October 03, 2017, 11:16:53 PM
Looking good. The shop floor looks clean :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Peter Jack on October 03, 2017, 11:48:06 PM
That's a nice looking jig. You should be able to build something really nice using that. Good luck!

Pete


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: fordboy628 on October 04, 2017, 06:22:30 AM
YES!
I'll pick up some lubricant for you . . . :cheers:

Bob,

Hmmmm . . . . .   66 huh?   Same age as I am, so I have some suggestions:

A/   DO NOT let the build budget negatively impact your suds budget.   Seriously, there have to be: PRIORITIES

2/   Refining/updating the design seems like a smart idea to me.   I'm thinkin' you are not going to want to do this over because of some small unconsidered detail.

d/   Another member of our "66" club, Tom Petty, has recently departed to places "unknown".    I'd say: "Git 'er done!!"   After all, we are all "walking wounded" at this age . . . . . .

As always, if you need anything from me, you know how to get a hold of me.    Even if it is just an infusion of "Dragon's Milk" . . . . . .

 :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Fordboy


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 04, 2017, 09:19:31 PM
FB, not to worry, that 20% is my lubrication budget...  :roll: so I can't really count it against the car. 
Usually spend most of my money on racing, women and booze.... and waste the rest...

So I have decided to build the front 140 inches of the car (less the nose) first, that will be front suspension, drivers area, engine bay and rear suspension mounts.  Hoping to not screw it up, we have been refining this thing for 33 years.  I know I want 2 or 3 more inches of climb in room, for the knees that are not getting any younger.... or more agile...
I am trying to figure out how to make an engine mount that just installs the mount and engine in the bay to eliminate the major fight we have getting engines in and out.... it may include the removable frame rail or not... time will tell if I can figure it out. 

I will make all the curved parts and weld them to the 24 X 16 rectangular section later. 


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: WOODY@DDLLC on October 05, 2017, 07:30:34 AM
George Burns once said something to the effect, "My doctor said I had to give up women, booze and cigars! Worst five minutes of my life! That doctor has been dead for 15 years now!"  :-o :-D :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: floydjer on October 05, 2017, 08:03:50 AM
Excellent idea on the wheels...the only thing is my shop that isn`t on wheels are my cars..........


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: manta22 on October 05, 2017, 10:56:50 AM
FB, not to worry, that 20% is my lubrication budget...  :roll: so I can't really count it against the car. 
Usually spend most of my money on racing, women and booze.... and waste the rest...

So I have decided to build the front 140 inches of the car (less the nose) first, that will be front suspension, drivers area, engine bay and rear suspension mounts.  Hoping to not screw it up, we have been refining this thing for 33 years.  I know I want 2 or 3 more inches of climb in room, for the knees that are not getting any younger.... or more agile...
I am trying to figure out how to make an engine mount that just installs the mount and engine in the bay to eliminate the major fight we have getting engines in and out.... it may include the removable frame rail or not... time will tell if I can figure it out. 

I will make all the curved parts and weld them to the 24 X 16 rectangular section later. 

Since you are building a new chassis, consider putting the rear engine & drivetrain in a section of the chassis that will break off from the rest in a hard crash. Getting rid of the energy in a heavy component like that will allow the section with the cockpit to come to a safer stop.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stan Back on October 05, 2017, 03:46:29 PM
Is that how the Manta is?


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: tortoise on October 05, 2017, 04:42:09 PM
Since you are building a new chassis, consider putting the rear engine & drivetrain in a section of the chassis that will break off from the rest in a hard crash. Getting rid of the energy in a heavy component like that will allow the section with the cockpit to come to a safer stop.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ

One might think that the mass of the drivetrain, if still firmly attached, would slow the deceleration of the vehicle upon impact, and limit damage to that bag of bones and water inside the roll cage.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: NathanStewart on October 05, 2017, 05:08:19 PM
F=MA.  Reduce the mass and you reduce the force.  I think the benefits of a break away chassis is fairly well understood and adopted in a few different forms of motorsports.

Stainless, Bockscar has always been one of my favorite cars for as long as I could remember - Ben Jordan was an early and great influence on me and my brother.  I'm glad you're bringing it back and hope you can maintain a majority of it's original form.  Looking forward to seeing it out on the salt again.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: tortoise on October 05, 2017, 05:45:17 PM
F=MA.  Reduce the mass and you reduce the force. 

F=MA. Reduce the mass and you increase the acceleration. Lighter vehicles are easier on things they run into, but that's not the issue here.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: manta22 on October 05, 2017, 06:11:10 PM
Is that how the Manta is?

Yes, Stan. My chassis is designed to separate between the rear of the roll cage structure and the chassis members that contain the engine, transaxle, and rear suspension & tires. I like the idea of the heavy stuff bouncing along separately from the part with me in it. In a mid- or rear-engine layout this is feasible; a front engine, not so much.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: manta22 on October 05, 2017, 06:14:36 PM
Since you are building a new chassis, consider putting the rear engine & drivetrain in a section of the chassis that will break off from the rest in a hard crash. Getting rid of the energy in a heavy component like that will allow the section with the cockpit to come to a safer stop.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ

One might think that the mass of the drivetrain, if still firmly attached, would slow the deceleration of the vehicle upon impact, and limit damage to that bag of bones and water inside the roll cage.

Actually, it is just the opposite- the heavier pieces have more energy; that must be dissipated so they tumble down the course further.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Speed Limit 1000 on October 05, 2017, 06:17:34 PM
F=MA.  Reduce the mass and you reduce the force.  I think the benefits of a break away chassis is fairly well understood and adopted in a few different forms of motorsports.

Stainless, Bockscar has always been one of my favorite cars for as long as I could remember - Ben Jordan was an early and great influence on me and my brother.  I'm glad you're bringing it back and hope you can maintain a majority of it's original form.  Looking forward to seeing it out on the salt again.

Ben Jordan changed our lives in a very positive and lasting ways :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: tortoise on October 05, 2017, 07:44:43 PM
Actually, it is just the opposite- the heavier pieces have more energy; that must be dissipated so they tumble down the course further.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ

If they go further, starting from the same speed, then they are decelerating more slowly. Speed doesn't kill, it's the deceleration.

I have a feeling that it's a more nuanced question, and am not entirely convinced by my own argument. You guys may be right, but the case has not been made. A relevant question, which perhaps some of you may be able to answer, is in a fatal accident on the salt, is it more likely caused by deformation of the cage, or subjecting the driver to massive accelerations within an intact cage?


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Interested Observer on October 05, 2017, 08:12:23 PM
Since you are embarking on a clean- or near clean-sheet build, one might consider the following:

Some years ago, on the long drive home from Speed Week, a particular team fell to discussing the various vehicle configurations then extant on the salt.  In due course Jim Feulingís streamliner came up for consideration.  Recall, front wheel drive, engine in front of the front axle, necessary bits in the middle, driver in the rear.  This was seen to offer a number of advantages and only one disadvantage (which could be lived with).
   Predominant weight on the driving and steering axle
   CG well in front of the CP
   Ready access to engine and driveline
   Superior driver sightlines
   Possible tapering profile


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: ggl205 on October 05, 2017, 08:48:13 PM
Actually, it is just the opposite- the heavier pieces have more energy; that must be dissipated so they tumble down the course further.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ

If they go further, starting from the same speed, then they are decelerating more slowly. Speed doesn't kill, it's the deceleration.

I have a feeling that it's a more nuanced question, and am not entirely convinced by my own argument. You guys may be right, but the case has not been made. A relevant question, which perhaps some of you may be able to answer, is in a fatal accident on the salt, is it more likely caused by deformation of the cage, or subjecting the driver to massive accelerations within an intact cage?

If a roll structure is still in tact after a crash, I would submitt it is sudden deceleration G's that kills. My first encounter with a high profile racer killed by sudden deceleration was Mark Donahue. After a high speed crash into a chain link fence, Mark walked away looking quite normal only to collapse and die within minutes after the crash. I am not sure if I understand exactly the cause but it has to do with sudden deceleration tearing brain connections from the skull. So, anything that can lessen deceleration G's, the better chances are of survival.

John


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Speed Limit 1000 on October 05, 2017, 08:50:11 PM
Since you are embarking on a clean- or near clean-sheet build, one might consider the following:
   
   Superior driver sightlines
   


In the Bockscar the motor in the back is about at the drivers sight level
John


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 06, 2017, 12:42:28 AM
Nathan, don't worry, you will be able to recognize it when we are done...

We probably won't build it to break apart in a crash... I would be afraid the rough salt might make it come apart prematurely... Besides I'm not that smart  :roll:

IO, semi clean sheet... unfortunately if we made it front engine that minimal sight line we have would become nonexistent....

As the picture shows, the build table is getting closer, all the fixture pieces have been squared, leveled and welded on.... the kiln has been disassembled for new quartz tubes and heating elements.... Yep Jerry, that is some of the non-race related stuff I do to keep the home owner association (Linda) happy. 

With any luck I will get the tube stops cut and fitted tomorrow


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: BHR301 on October 06, 2017, 02:54:54 AM
Question, with a break away chassis wouldn't that leave the cockpit area without a chute?

Bill


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: ggl205 on October 06, 2017, 06:43:39 AM
Question, with a break away chassis wouldn't that leave the cockpit area without a chute?

Bill

Bill, at that point, the chute is useless.

John


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: jacksoni on October 06, 2017, 07:30:04 AM
Question, with a break away chassis wouldn't that leave the cockpit area without a chute?

Bill

Bill, at that point, the chute is useless.

John
I was going to question this as well. Need two chutes, one for the engine, one for the driver and surround........ :roll: :roll: :?


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: NathanStewart on October 06, 2017, 02:14:07 PM
F=MA.  Reduce the mass and you reduce the force. 

F=MA. Reduce the mass and you increase the acceleration. Lighter vehicles are easier on things they run into, but that's not the issue here.

Okay, maybe I was lazy with my physics reference but it's about reducing energy.  The more mass and velocity an object has, the more kinetic energy it's going to have.  Having parts shed away during a crash gives the benefit of releasing energy to remove those parts and then reducing the energy of the parts the driver is still attached too.  The driver is going to have momentum and will want to keep moving while the chassis is slamming into the ground.  If you can reduce the chassis's momentum by reducing it's mass, less energy is going to get transferred to the driver.  You highlight this point above.  If a lighter vehicle is "easier" on things they run into then it has the same affect on being easier on those inside the vehicle. 

Bockscar is a fairly small and lightweight car so it's kinetic energy is already going to be much less anyways. 



Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: CNC-Dude on October 06, 2017, 03:20:21 PM
  I am not sure if I understand exactly the cause but it has to do with sudden deceleration tearing brain connections from the skull. So, anything that can lessen deceleration G's, the better chances are of survival.

John
[/quote]

Yes, that and other internal organs continuing to stay in motion when your body is stopped suddenly and tearing loose internally causing exsanguination .


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: tortoise on October 06, 2017, 05:58:53 PM
  If a lighter vehicle is "easier" on things they run into then it has the same affect on being easier on those inside the vehicle.

A heavy vehicle at 100 mph hits, say, a house. It goes through 3 walls before the coming to a stop. A lighter vehicle just breaks through the outer wall before coming to a stop. All other things being equal, which vehicle has subjected the driver to higher acceleration?



Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: WhizzbangK.C. on October 06, 2017, 06:32:59 PM
 If a lighter vehicle is "easier" on things they run into then it has the same affect on being easier on those inside the vehicle.

A heavy vehicle at 100 mph hits, say, a house. It goes through 3 walls before the coming to a stop. A lighter vehicle just breaks through the outer wall before coming to a stop. All other things being equal, which vehicle has subjected the driver to higher acceleration?



It seems to me that on a good LSR course, there are no houses, or other solid objects, to hit. In this venue the forces generated during an incident mostly result from tangential contact with the ground. The higher the mass of the object involved, the longer it will take to stop, resulting in more impacts. The lighter the mass the quicker the deceleration and the sooner you come to a stop, minimizing the number of hits you take in the process. Think of it this way, would you rather tumble and roll 5 times or 25?


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: tortoise on October 06, 2017, 07:04:17 PM
It seems to me that on a good LSR course, there are no houses, or other solid objects, to hit. In this venue the forces generated during an incident mostly result from tangential contact with the ground. The higher the mass of the object involved, the longer it will take to stop, resulting in more impacts. The lighter the mass the quicker the deceleration and the sooner you come to a stop, minimizing the number of hits you take in the process. Think of it this way, would you rather tumble and roll 5 times or 25?

That may indeed be correct. My last post addressed only the argument presented by the post I was responding to.

Are post-crash analyses in SCTA events ever made public?


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: WhizzbangK.C. on October 06, 2017, 08:13:30 PM
It seems to me that on a good LSR course, there are no houses, or other solid objects, to hit. In this venue the forces generated during an incident mostly result from tangential contact with the ground. The higher the mass of the object involved, the longer it will take to stop, resulting in more impacts. The lighter the mass the quicker the deceleration and the sooner you come to a stop, minimizing the number of hits you take in the process. Think of it this way, would you rather tumble and roll 5 times or 25?

That may indeed be correct. My last post addressed only the argument presented by the post I was responding to.

Are post-crash analyses in SCTA events ever made public?

As far as I've been able to see, they do not make the analyses public. Not just the SCTA, but all the sanctioning bodies seem to operate the same way. The only results that the general public can see are the rule changes that come down, and even then they usually don't directly reference the incident that brought about the change. Most times that is pretty obvious from circumstantial evidence, but they rarely state it explicitly.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 06, 2017, 10:42:48 PM
Well guys, this one is planned to be built like the last one... the entire car being a roll cage.  The old car didn't kill us, with any luck, the new one won't either.... The weaker parts of the car bent and broke... every corner of the suspension was broken, torn from the mounts,  and by my guess absorbed energy. 

I think building a weak point in the frame will lead to premature failure in the rough courses we have been experiencing. 
And guys... the engine weighs about the same as the driver.... it ain't a BBC
So if the guys that want their car to break apart are smart enough to know how it is going to wreck so they can make it break when and where they want it to.... more power to them....
I am not that guy.  :cheers:

The table is ready for pipe.... no pic today


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: SPARKY on October 06, 2017, 10:44:28 PM
 :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: PorkPie on October 07, 2017, 03:54:01 AM
it's always from the point of view...

if you be in vehicle which goes 35 mph, your weight is about 150 pounds, and you decelerate in 0,1 second to Zero mph your body mass will became 1,5 ton....now here the seat belt starts to work...in a passenger car the seat belt is so designed that it allowed you to move forward...this increase the time you are moving....means it needs longer that you come to the stop than the vehicle.....and in this way it is reducing your mass...and this will be protecting you to get hurt.

in a LSR vehicle, with the seat belt we using, you became a part of the vehicle....only in the direct direction of the seat belt there is a stretch effect which reduce the stress on the body...sideways there is no movement possible....

now it's depends how you "crash"....pencil roll, this will be never an issue to your body because the deceleration force on your body is very low. if the vehicle start to fly it is totally different...every time the vehicle has a contact with the ground...as a part of the racer...the deceleration moment goes on your body......

if the impact to the ground is a instant stop (albeit for a very short time) your body will create a big mass as I explained with the sudden stop inside of 0,1 seconds....and this is the critical moment.....so long the vehicle is at high speed in the movement....means rolls or fly's...your body is not creating a big mass

a very good example is Stainless Birthday party 2013.....due to this that the streamliner was tumbling over and over...the force on Stainless stayed low...if the streamliner had a longer stop contact on the ground than it could be serious for him.

now to the weight of the vehicle "slowing" down at high speed.....a heavy weight need longer to slow down....at the salt there is nothing we can crash in (except the salt...)...that means in the other hand....the vehicle needs longer to come to the rest......for your body it means more time to decelerate....but this counts only if the vehicle change not his direction or comes to a sudden stop.....means, when the racer stand on his wheels and spin....or pencil rolls into the moving direction.....

all changes from the moving direction into a other direction creates a deceleration effect on your body.....

it will be always a matter of how the racer crash.....and depends on that....have the luck that he does it the right way  

 If a lighter vehicle is "easier" on things they run into then it has the same affect on being easier on those inside the vehicle.

A heavy vehicle at 100 mph hits, say, a house. It goes through 3 walls before the coming to a stop. A lighter vehicle just breaks through the outer wall before coming to a stop. All other things being equal, which vehicle has subjected the driver to higher acceleration?




Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: MAYOMAN on October 07, 2017, 09:09:03 AM
An idea for attenuating the impact of a high speed crash might be to package the driver in a crash structure isolated from the vehicle chassis. In the Ken Carter Lincoln jump car (donít ask) a complete sub-chassis (?) was suspended within the actual chassis (monocoque) structure by shock absorbing coiled wire rope attachments. These were commercially available hardware items used to protect shock sensitive equipment being transported in containers. The ability of the sub-chassis to move independently of the outer structure absorbs some of the shock. Pork Pieís analysis shows the value of even tenths of a second in substantially reducing the impact G loads on the driver. This design solution would be a more predictable method of reducing crash impact than a self-destructing chassis.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: MAYOMAN on October 07, 2017, 09:15:51 AM
This wire rope isolator was what I had used. Other designs are commercially available. I hope the photo is here.


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: MAYOMAN on October 07, 2017, 09:34:25 AM
An additional advantage of this driver isolation strategy is that it would be omni-directional so you donít have to plan for a particular crash scenario. Also, it will be continually effective in a multiple impact event. :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 07, 2017, 11:56:15 PM
Dick, I like that idea, but we don't really have room for it.  We are 24 x 16 outside the frame rails.

Speaking of frame rails I cut 2 140 inch ones and put them on the table.  Stops are squared and welded to 24 inches.  These are the bottom rails...  The tube is 1020 ERW .140 wall according to the printing on it. 

Then life jumped in so tomorrow I  will cut some cross pieces. 


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Freud on October 08, 2017, 12:21:46 PM
Looks like a rotisserie.

Smartest idea imaginable.

Cheaters always prosper.

FREUD


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: SPARKY on October 08, 2017, 04:45:41 PM
My Good Dr. -- is that supposed to be wisdom of a Sage or just musings???


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: WOODY@DDLLC on October 08, 2017, 07:17:37 PM
Definitely the musings of a wise Sage!  :-D :cheers:


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Stainless1 on October 09, 2017, 12:09:16 AM
Definitely the musings of a wise Sage!  :-D :cheers:

Woody, you forgot old... I think he is the oldest guy to ride a motorcycle in competition at Bonneville....

OK, cut a few cross braces, added the crouch belt attach point to one, need to make one more.... for this part I think... Coping with the Mill, straight cuts are easy... space plus 3/4 cut on the saw, then hole saw 3/8 per side. 
I could work faster if I didn't have to think about how I need to change things and help the neighbor fix his mower.

Only tacked the first one so far... still thinking.... can you hear it where you are?


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Rex Schimmer on October 12, 2017, 12:02:50 PM
Stainless,
Great to see you are building a new Bockscar!!! Looking forward to watching your build and see what ever new modifications you will be incorporating. After running the old car for so many years I am sure you have a long list of "If I every do this again I am going to change (insert long list of changes and new ideas here)" .

Rex


Title: Re: Bockscar 2.0
Post by: Sumner on October 12, 2017, 03:01:38 PM
.....So if the guys that want their car to break apart are smart enough to know how it is going to wreck so they can make it break when and where they want it to.... more power to them....
I am not that guy.  :cheers:...

I have a feeling most of us are "not that guy".

Great to see you working on the car  :cheers: :cheers:.  Since the last one set so many records, I imagine big changes are not in your plans,

Sumner