Tubing requirement change for 2-wheel streamliners

[1212FBGS]

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

[1212FBGS]

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

[Tman]

And the list goes on.............

[JustaRacer]

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.  

[Steve Walters]

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  .

Steve       

[Jon]

Being a CAD Luddite I've gone for the TAP method.
Tape And Pictures.

Looking through the rear hoop facing forwards:


Looking from above the front wheel tub facing backwards:


Side view:


Another side view:


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

[bak189]

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...

[stay`tee]

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,,,,

[JustaRacer]

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.

[1212FBGS]

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....

[killajoule]

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

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

[kiwi belly tank]

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.

[55chevr]

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.

[JustaRacer]

...
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. 

 

[Peter Jack]

What do production cars have to do with motorcycle streamliners??

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

Pete