Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => Bonneville General Chat => Topic started by: apexfab on November 25, 2018, 09:30:49 AM
-
I haven't been able to find much info on these little cars besides a thread on the H.A.M.B. with a couple of pictures of Ak Miller with them in the '60's and a build sheet from a restored car via google images. The 901 car is chain drive with no clutch or transmission? Did they rev it up and kick it off the stand or what? I'm sort of interested in building a mini streamliner (longer and more narrow, though) based around a hopped up Polaris 3 cyl. snowmobile engine. Any of you folks have any info on these cool little cars? Any resources for small wheels and tires that comply with current rule book standards?
Thanks,
Andy
(https://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg561/apecch/uploads_2016_8_29_bonneville_17_zpsse3iqd46.jpg)
(https://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg561/apecch/DSC_0445_zpshbrnpetu.jpg)
-
Another question: How strict is S.C.T.A. about the 1 5/8" tubing rule? Is there any chance of a rule book deviation to use 1 1/2" D.O.M. X .12" tubing if the structure is well built? I only ask because I have 1 1/2" dies for my bender and additional dies are pretty spendy. I wouldn't think .125 on the O.D. would make a whole lot of difference, esp. when the wall thickness is .02 more than the minimum requirement.
Thanks,
Andy
P.S. I understand that section height (or O.D. in this case) is more important to structural integrity than wall thickness, but .125" is not much on the diameter. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyone have a formula to figure that?
-
The yellow 555 looks like the Ballpoint Banana.... Evinrude motor on alcohol rope start. Owned by a guy from Towanda, New York named Arnold.... don't remember last name, but someone will, last raced in 1984 I think.
As far as the 1 5/8 tube, I think that is non-negotiable... I guess if you can supply engineering data of the frame you construct that shows it is as strong then you might get there.... but I doubt it. Start with the Special Construction Chair in the rule book. The requirement is already .120 wall unless you are using chromoly tubing.
But... if you are concerned about the $300 that a die will cost for your bender, building a streamliner may not be the best idea.... you know you have to build and equip to the current record speed... safety equipment will run close to $5000 after the car is built...
Good luck with your project... get a rulebook and read it several times.... :cheers:
-
no fooling , my little streamliner ( 500 cc diesel ) were the record is about 60 mph, cost a small fortune for me. I hung out in tech for three seasons just to observe , to get a first hand look at what is required in this class. doesnt matter if its 300 mph or 50 mph. the safety requirements are pretty much the same . I quickly learned not to build to the rule book minimum. it grew to be about nineteen feet long, lots of stuff to pack in . I knew what I was getting into , this kind of fabrication is what I do . I've totally enjoyed every step . the rule book doesn't seem to be negotiable. take it slow , have deep pockets.
-
I think the last of the little liners was probably these 2.... The Burkdoll Blue Bird... ran way to fast for the wheelbase with 750 Honda interceptor motor 84-85 time frame....
don't have any info on the 127 car....
Both were little, but small motor liners were evolving to longer cars, dictated mostly by control-ability... hard to imagine doing 200 with a 70 inch WB.... But the Blue Bird was very close to that...
-
I note that SCTA have a motorcycle streamliner engine class for UF and UG, which states any reciprocating Otto cycle motor may be used. The motorcycle streamliner rules only require 1-1/4" OD tubing, so if you can do with only 3 wheels, the smaller 1-1/2" tubing size would be allowed.
I have seen a motorcycle with a snowmobile motor at BMST, but no class to run it in so it ran in "Run What You Brung" class. Interestingly, the motor was mounted upside down for more ground clearance to the torque converter. I never found out how fast he ran.
I don't know if there are class sizes in UF or UG, because I can't find any records for either in the 2017 rulebook.
Tom
-
Thanks for the replies!
I understand that there is a considerable amount of money involved with building these cars. A land speed car will not be my first build. I found that remark about the "$300 dies" a little offensive. Even if you're a millionaire, dollars add up. I don't have the book in front of me (I've been reading it for two years now) but, now that I think about it, I believe 1.5" tubing is sufficient for the smaller engine classes. I also understand about building for the next class up.
Look, I've been lurking this forum for a while before I registered. I'm not an idiot. I'm not going to try and build a sketchy belly tank like that one guy (you know the thread). Old guys in the pits say they need new blood. I'm still learning but I don't need that kind of attitude. I know about the suit, helmet, gloves, head and neck restraints, fire suppression system, chute/s (if required), tires, etc. and I know it all costs money. So... If you're going to reply to this topic, try not to be a dick.
Thanks,
Andy
-
Andy, you were given solid advise by people who have been there and done that, including crashing heavily in a special construction relatively small displacement car. I believe if you go back a few years you'll find the minimum size tubing was upgraded from 1 1/2" to 1 5/8" for the smaller displacement cars. These rulings are usually made from experience. The dies for my Hossfeld are expensive but it's what's required for the job. You might be able to find a used set because that's the size required for a lot of dirt cars so they aren't uncommon.
Pete
-
Now if you called me a dick, I'm sure there are plenty here who'd join in with you. But, Stainless? If you've been lurking here for a while and read his knowledgable and courteous suggestions and replies, maybe you've confused him with me.
After reading your reply, I'd like to recommend that you use the 1-1/2 (or even 1-1/4) and show them how to do it. Use your own knowledge and foresight and plunge ahead. More power to you!
Stan
-
:cheers: Stan! :lol:
Mike
-
Apex,
If you can find a structural engineer who will design and stamp and sign that design, you might be able to convince someone that 1-1/2" tubing will be strong enough. But I doubt if you'll find an engineer who will risk taking that responsibility because there are too many unknowns and unpredictable forces.
I am an engineer (not structurally qualified), designed and built my own partial streamliner motorcycle frame, and it broke in two places and cracked in 5 more after 2 years.
So why should SCTA or anyone else take a chance on a variation from what seems to be working? We had a streamliner crash at World of Speed last year at close to 400 mph, spread parts all over about a mile of the track, and the driver was unhurt.
Tom
-
Andy, you were given solid advise by people who have been there and done that, including crashing heavily in a special construction relatively small displacement car. I believe if you go back a few years you'll find the minimum size tubing was upgraded from 1 1/2" to 1 5/8" for the smaller displacement cars. These rulings are usually made from experience. The dies for my Hossfeld are expensive but it's what's required for the job. You might be able to find a used set because that's the size required for a lot of dirt cars so they aren't uncommon.
Pete
2018 book still says 1 1/2x.095 for G to K unless record is over 175, then the larger tube applies. Except in Diesel, all the records are over 175 which makes it pretty much moot. And remember the cage extends to feet and must protect from bottom as well.
-
Andy, since you may not know me, maybe you should call me Richard because Dick sounds too informal... :roll:
If you were building for a class that has a record under 175 with a small motor then your cage idea works fine, but in the multiple times you read the book, and paid close attention to the tube size, you may have skipped the last sentence in that paragraph.... feel free to read it again.... 3.B.1.... I'll wait....
OK now that is done.... as I said earlier you can try to convince the Special Construction Chair that the record you are after doesn't require 1 5/8 tube... it will require engineering data and the design plan you will follow.... but as expressed earlier by me and someone that is not a dick, it is unlikely they will make an exception.
If you change your location to a real location, maybe someone near you has a die you can borrow.... even if they are building a "sketchy belly tank"... and no I am not familiar with that thread, but please take your own advice about criticizing a build discussion.
Yes, the sport needs younger people and some of us old Richards :-o will do our best to not let them make expensive or rookie mistakes if we can.
Good luck with your project :cheers:
-
Hi Andy,
I don't know you yet, but I hope we can become better acquainted. And in the interest of adding new, younger blood to the sport, I suggest that perhaps instead of interpreting the comments of older, more experienced forum members as criticism, consider it as advice from the voice of experience.
Most of the members you have been interacting with here are Bonneville record holders, or former record holders, or competitive in the class where they run. Advice of the highest order, as it is. ALL, are well intentioned gentlemen whose only interest and goal, is to help those "less experienced" members through the confusion of dealing with the rule book during a build leading to completion, and then to competition. Keep in mind that there are folks in this sport, and on this forum, who have constructed competition entries, only to have them rejected for competition by tech. Typically, the reason was some "small deviation" on an "overlooked" or obscure rule. Depending on the type of violation, the consequences of this might be minor, BUT, can be fatal to a car's competition potential, if egregious. So then, advice from the general pool of member's experience, can do much to avoid these negative consequences.
I have a long career in professional motorsport, and I can assure you of at least two things:
1/ Sanctioning bodies are disdainful of "deviations from the rules", and the usual result is: disqualification from competition.
2/ Racing, in any form, has ALWAYS been expensive. The trick is to minimize your "re-expenditures". "Good advice" helps with this issue.
My father, an experienced engineer, as I am now, sat me down when I was 18, to explain his view of life in general, and engineering in particular. What he said was:
There are 3 types of people you will encounter in life:
Group A: Those who learn from other people's mistakes.
Group B: Those who learn from their own mistakes.
Group C: Those who never learn.
We all get to choose who we are going to be, it's up to you to choose wisely. Don't disappoint me.
It was sage advice then, and now as well.
Best wishes on your build. There is a plethora of resources available to you here on this board. Ask questions, debate issues, and choose wisely before committing time and resources to metal, etc. We ALL wish you success.
:cheers:
Fordboy
-
Mark this day down for posterity.....S.B and I agreed twice in one year. :cheers:
-
2018 book still says 1 1/2x.095 for G to K unless record is over 175, then the larger tube applies.
... and all the G to K streamliner records in BFS, FS, BGS, GS are over 175 I believe so one has to go to the larger dia. tubing or to the appropriate square tubing size,
Sumner
-
Let me also bring up this point.
CURRENTLY the rule calls for 1 5/8" diameter tubes at these speeds.
Most cars of this type take years to get to the point where they're ready to race, and in that time frame, RULES CHANGE.
Next year, the car may be done, but if the rules change, it might not be compliant.
We almost lost a MAJORITY of motorcycle streamliners due to a proposed tubing size rule change a number of years back. I believe it was only because of the popularity of the class that the change was re-examined. I doubt small-bore special construction classes would garner the type of internal institutional support that the more popular, high-visibility MC streamliners did, if a change in basic construction were to be re-examined.
Nobody's got a crystal ball on this stuff, but while the rules permit 1 5/8" for the speeds I run, when I put the cage in the Midget, I went to 1 3/4"
Overbuilding now can go a long way toward not rebuilding later.
-
Actually the rules would let you run 1.5 x .095, but a heavier duty cage won't hurt .... and you probably want to survive if something untoward happens :-o
:cheers:
-
Let me also bring up this point.
CURRENTLY the rule calls for 1 5/8" diameter tubes at these speeds.
Most cars of this type take years to get to the point where they're ready to race, and in that time frame, RULES CHANGE.
Next year, the car may be done, but if the rules change, it might not be compliant.
We almost lost a MAJORITY of motorcycle streamliners due to a proposed tubing size rule change a number of years back. I believe it was only because of the popularity of the class that the change was re-examined. I doubt small-bore special construction classes would garner the type of internal institutional support that the more popular, high-visibility MC streamliners did, if a change in basic construction were to be re-examined.
Nobody's got a crystal ball on this stuff, but while the rules permit 1 5/8" for the speeds I run, when I put the cage in the Midget, I went to 1 3/4"
Overbuilding now can go a long way toward not rebuilding later.
Structurally speaking . . . . . allow me to add this:
Structural strength in tubing is raised significantly by increases in diameter, approximately 1/8" to 1/4" increase in diameter.
Structural strength is only raised modestly by small increases in wall thickness, say from .095' to .120"/.125".
Check any strength of materials table from any tubing manufacturer. Note also that there are differences in strength in tubing manufacturing, ie: ERW Vs Seamless Vs DOM; as well as strength differences in material specification.
And all of this does not consider quality of fabrication or welding or any post welding heat treatment/stress relieving . . . . .
Going toward the "cheap end" on any safety equipment, not just roll cages/structures, might not be the "insightful" thing to do, certainly from a long term planning view, as MM points out.
Also, you might want to have a dialog with a competitor who has survived a "ferocious crash" in a vehicle with an "overbuilt" safety structure. Finding a surviving competitor from a crash of an "underbuilt" safety structure might be "more challenging" . . . . . and is the reason why safety structure requirements are "upgraded".
And finally, if you do not possess the ability to calculate the amount of energy that would need to be "dissipated" in an "unfortunate incident", at record speed in the vehicle you propose to build, and the ability to calculate the structure required to "protect" the driver/occupant", you really need to stick to the "overbuilt side" of the rule book.
Once you are "crashing", you are no longer a driver. You are just a bb in a pail, hoping your pail is strong enough to withstand the "beating".
:cheers:
Fordboy
-
Also, be aware of where your tubeing/steel is manufactured,, I recently purchased some tubeing (pipe) from a National Retail Hardware supplier here in Australia, using a hydralic tube bender the stuff crinkled up in the throat of the bend, my understanding is that the tubeing was manufactuted in a very large country to the north of us,, I then purchased some tubeing from a reputable Australian Steel house who manufacture and sell their own product, no problems with the forming of the bends :-)
-
Why are you guys telling him any of this? He's a fabricator (or at least owns a welder and tubing bender), has a rule book and apparently has been once or twice so he already knows everything. He was just wondering if A) the rules don't actually mean anything (certainly the SCTA is pretty flexible on its rules about roll cage tubing size, right guys?) or B) the rules don't apply to him (certainly they'll let me deviate from the rules because I'm special, right guys?). :roll:
Son, you've not been on this forum or in our world remotely long enough to start calling people dicks. You can pack up that attitude and find your way to the door as far as I'm concerned. Come back when you get over your jack-hole attitude and realize you don't know squat and actually want to learn something.
-
He was last on the site on November 25.
Mike
-
no fooling , I wish I had taken the dicks suggestions a bit more seriously at the beginning of my build, then I wouldn't have dicked of time and dicked away money. its dicking tough building one of these. so to all the dicks out there that have replied to my questions and offered advice --- thank you --- love every minute of this.