Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners

[Dr Goggles]

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

[1212FBGS]

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

[Jon]

Thanks for the update Kent.

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

Regards
Jon

[Dakin Engineering]

Would the author of of this proposed rule change please stand up and identify themself?

Sam

[55chevr]

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

[Koncretekid]

....  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

[salt]

Looks like the proposal to change the vintage ignition rule failed, too.

Willi

[fredvance]

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.

[Milwaukee Midget]

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?

[dw230]

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

[1212FBGS]

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

[Jon]

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

[SaltPeter]

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.

 
Pete from Oz

[Heliophile]

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.

[Heliophile]

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.