Author Topic: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners  (Read 78441 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 1212FBGS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2532
    • http://www.motobody.com
Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
« Reply #45 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

Offline 1212FBGS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2532
    • http://www.motobody.com
Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
« Reply #46 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

Offline Jon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
« Reply #47 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.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2012, 03:30:28 AM by Jon »
Underhouse Engineering
Luck = Opportunity + Preparation^3

Offline ack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
« Reply #48 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.

Offline High Gear

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
    • Team Arrow Racing
Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
« Reply #49 on: November 16, 2012, 12:43:08 PM »
Mike,

Thanks for insight, well stated. I agree completely.

X MC Streamliner Rider and Crasher.

Gary
Fix What You Know is Wrong First
Spirits Of The Lakes E/FMS Berkeley #569

Offline 1212FBGS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2532
    • http://www.motobody.com
Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
« Reply #50 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

Offline Nortonist 592

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
    • http://www.artfv.com/design/fashion/
Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
« Reply #51 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.
Get off the stove Grandad.  You're too old to be riding the range.

Offline Tman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3672
Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
« Reply #52 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

Offline krusty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
« Reply #53 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

     
     

Offline Glen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7024
  • SCTA/BNI timer 1983 to 2004, Retired,. Crew on Tur
Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
« Reply #54 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.
Glen
Crew on Turbinator II

South West, Utah

Offline SaltPeter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
  • Can't you just be Serious for once in your Life!
Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
« Reply #55 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.

The Mission is to go as fast as possible along on that old Road Less Traveled.

Offline Jon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
« Reply #56 on: November 16, 2012, 09:09:26 PM »
Underhouse Engineering
Luck = Opportunity + Preparation^3

Offline Milwaukee Midget

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6662
    • Milwaukee Midget Racing
Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
« Reply #57 on: November 16, 2012, 10:38:16 PM »
live audio feed from the Australian Motorcycle Streamliner Community

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. 


"Problems are almost always a sign of progress."  Harold Bettes
Well, I guess we're making a LOT of progress . . .  :roll:

Offline panic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
    • My tech papers
Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
« Reply #58 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.

Offline panic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
    • My tech papers
Re: Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners
« Reply #59 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.