Author Topic: Composite Chassis  (Read 10646 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Steady Steve

  • New folks
  • Posts: 6
Composite Chassis
« on: February 14, 2007, 08:28:48 AM »
Does anyone have any experience of getting a full composite streamliner/lakester or motorcycle streamliner chassis through tech inspection and if so what type of information is needed to prove it is safe and strong enough.

I would like to run a full carbon/honeycomb chassis in a lakester to reduce the cross sectional area compared to a conventional tube space-frame as I will propably be chunckier than the engine.

Alternatively I guess I could starve myself or linish off the sides of my bum and shoulders, it would work out cheaper too but I reckon it will smart a bit with all the salt around.


Offline Stainless1

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8981
  • Robert W. P. "Stainless" Steele
Re: Composite Chassis
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2007, 09:05:19 AM »
Steve,
Section 3.B.1 on roll cages
"Deviation requests shall include strength calculations, drawings and pictures showing all physical dimensions of the roll cage bar structure and ajacent frame."
Are you thinking or replacing the roll cage by building it in from composites?  You will probably have a long road ahead.  There are plenty of ways to keep cross-section down.  Are you sure you are larger than your motor?  Comfort is not a requirement in a Bonneville car. If you go fast enough or slow enough you will only be in there a few minutes....
Looking forward to seeing you on the salt.
Stainless
Red Hat 228.039, 2001, 65ci, Bockscar Lakester #1000 with a little N2O

Offline 1212FBGS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2532
    • http://www.motobody.com
Re: Composite Chassis
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2007, 12:43:31 PM »
+3" is no big deal... lowering the CD is far better.... no hastles fron the tech inspectors is priceless!
Kent
ps. the cage structure needs steel only in the driver area, the rest of the vehicle can be whatever you can get by the tech guys. good luck.

Offline Steady Steve

  • New folks
  • Posts: 6
Re: Composite Chassis
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2007, 01:14:52 PM »
I have a rule book and I know one of the quotes for special construction class is 'innovation is unlimited' and am aware of the roll cage rules so was just interested in how detailed the analysis neededs to be to prove it would be structually strong enough.

I am thinking of building a full monocoque with integrally moulded roll structure rather than just replacing the roll hoop. My shoulders are quite close to the the width of a Busa engine when layed back as far as I think I can go but it's close.

I have 17 yrs composite design experience using advanced pre-preg materials on the McLaren F1 road and GTR cars as well as 10 yrs in F1 so am comfortable with the techniques involved in making a safe car, I just wanted to get a feel how similiarly constructed cars are vetted by the tech boys.

I plan to make sure anything I build is approved by them before constrcution starts and should be able to provide full Finite Elemant Analysis as I see it as an essential part of doing the safest job I can.

Offline PorkPie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2045
  • think fast.....always
Re: Composite Chassis
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2007, 01:38:26 PM »
7 years ago was a full composite streamliner #912 at the salt, runs a small turbine engine.
The advantage of this construction was not aerodynamically used - the streamliner was built like a brick.
The driver/owner couldn't go fast in the beginning, with the racer. Don Vesco went in, set a record and approved the stability of the racer. After Don's record the owner went in again and went into the two club.
This car had no frame inside the composite design, some crossmember in the driver position area was built in, but also from composite. The suspension was directly attached to the composite construction. To my opinion some reinforcement was laminate into the composite for the connecting/attachment points of the suspension to stiff the design.
Pork Pie

Photoartist & Historian & 200 MPH Club Member (I/GL 202.8 mph in the orig. Bockscar #1000)

Offline JackD

  • NOBODY'S FOOL
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Composite Chassis
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2007, 02:20:01 PM »
Don built  composite, Monocoque streamlined bike in 79 that was tested once on private time and was abandoned as a 2 wheeler.
Some time later a buddy of his put a live Axel in the rear with the wheels outside to make a 3 wheeler.
Don's buddy was sure it was going to get a softy minimum set for it in the low 2s for a cheap shot at the 2 club.
When the minimum was set at over 300, he was more than a little upset and I never saw him again.
It passed tech with SCTA as a 3 wheeler but never ran. 
"I would rather lose going fast enough to win than win going slow enough to lose."
"That horrible smell is dirty feet being held to the fire"

dwarner

  • Guest
Re: Composite Chassis
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2007, 02:29:37 PM »
The back of the rulebook has contact info for head tech guys, start there:

Lee Kennedy, techchaircars@scta-bni.org
Alan Fogliadini, fuelroadster54@aol.com
John Bjorkman, jbjorkman@comcast.net

DW

Offline Stainless1

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8981
  • Robert W. P. "Stainless" Steele
Re: Composite Chassis
« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2007, 04:26:36 PM »
A full composite vehicle...
very innovative, probably not the type they allow unless you get them past the vision of shattered CF bodies they have seen in the past. 
Before you send the time and money to build a car that way, build a "test section" and bring it to the salt for the tech guys to play with.  And the engineering data to back it up.
You may still need inner panels in the drivers area, this one could be interesting, but not necessarily save you cross-section.  Take Kent's advice, a little aero goes a long way.
My team already understands every square inch that is not in your cross-section has a .000 CD.

BTW, I probably would not recommend the Craig Breedlove answer when we asked him why his carbon fiber cockpit area in his last car did not have any roll structure...
"you don't build a Lear Jet to crash into a mountain" 

Have fun, it's why we race
Stainless
Red Hat 228.039, 2001, 65ci, Bockscar Lakester #1000 with a little N2O

Offline PorkPie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2045
  • think fast.....always
Re: Composite Chassis
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2007, 04:31:42 PM »


BTW, I probably would not recommend the Craig Breedlove answer when we asked him why his carbon fiber cockpit area in his last car did not have any roll structure...
"you don't build a Lear Jet to crash into a mountain" 

Have fun, it's why we race
[/quote]

Typical Craig answer......but the truth is.......it need no roll structure, due to this that the cockpit shell himself was the roll structure...........
Pork Pie

Photoartist & Historian & 200 MPH Club Member (I/GL 202.8 mph in the orig. Bockscar #1000)

Offline Speed Limit 1000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1402
Re: Composite Chassis
« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2007, 06:23:52 PM »
I would hate to see him "test" that with the big jet,
John Gowetski, red hat @ 221.183 MPH MSA Lakester, Bockscar #1000 60 ci normally aspirated w/N20

Offline sockjohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 364
Re: Composite Chassis
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2007, 10:33:48 PM »
A full composite vehicle...
very innovative, probably not the type they allow unless you get them past the vision of shattered CF bodies they have seen in the past. 
Before you send the time and money to build a car that way, build a "test section" and bring it to the salt for the tech guys to play with.  And the engineering data to back it up.
You may still need inner panels in the drivers area, this one could be interesting, but not necessarily save you cross-section.  Take Kent's advice, a little aero goes a long way.
My team already understands every square inch that is not in your cross-section has a .000 CD.

BTW, I probably would not recommend the Craig Breedlove answer when we asked him why his carbon fiber cockpit area in his last car did not have any roll structure...
"you don't build a Lear Jet to crash into a mountain" 

Have fun, it's why we race

Long ago I worked on solar car project in college, full composite construction.  To prove we met requirements for the rollbar, we built two cockpits and drop tested the second from a crane.  I think the requirement was for 5 G loading, which was about an 80 foot drop if my memory is correct.  Not practical, but the school had a crane and high speed cameras just laying around.

Sevaral of the grad students had done FEA on it prior, and made minor modifications to the design after the drop test.

I wish I had the videotape of this!

Our layup was something like: inner layer of Kevlar, carbon fibre layers, high density foam core, more carbon layers, and an outer layer of S-glass.  I am going off memory, so could be off on the layer setup.

The Kevlar keeps the carbon shards from entering the cockpit.

We crash tested the final car for real about three days prior to the race, and it too held up well.

John


Offline Glen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7024
  • SCTA/BNI timer 1983 to 2004, Retired,. Crew on Tur
Re: Composite Chassis
« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2007, 11:22:28 PM »
Dropping a section of a car in no way duplicates a complete vehicle crashing at speed. There are many things that come into play with components flying off, side ways and end over end impacts etc. I'm not trying to shoot you down but in the last 24 years I have been on more crashes at the lakes and Bonneville then I care to think about. I have seen more then one travel over a half mile from the start to the end of the incident. Thats one of the reason we are so picky on our rules. We have an excellent safety record and we learn and make the necessary safety changes from the lessons learned.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2007, 11:24:35 PM by Glen »
Glen
Crew on Turbinator II

South West, Utah

Offline russ jensen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 205
Re: Composite Chassis
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2007, 11:40:42 PM »
Maybe this is a silly question - but- why composite??? - steel is far cheaper -even stainless-easier to work with- well proven-you don't get the sticky epox all over-I can see it would be easier for body panels etc- but for structure?specialy since wt isn't big deal.
speed is expensive-how fast do you want to go?-to soon old & to late smart.

Offline maguromic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
    • http://www.barringtontea.com
Re: Composite Chassis
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2007, 12:49:16 AM »
Since weight is really not a big issue and properly placed can be your friend.  Why do it in composite?  What about doing a tube frame with a stress skin?
“If you haven’t seen the future, you are not going fast enough”

Offline russ jensen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 205
Re: Composite Chassis
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2007, 03:22:45 AM »
Since weight is really not a big issue and properly placed can be your friend.  Why do it in composite?  What about doing a tube frame with a stress skin?
From my exp composite is far more expensive & harder to work w/ ept maybe pannels. thought skin should be easy to remove so as to be able to work on stuff under it - like eng. --when yellow crosley flew , panels flew & got ground up but basic structure protected earl far better than first glance of situation would indicate..also around here it costs a lot to work w/ epox in winter;{to keep warm enough.}.properly placed wt should be low, like steel plate belly pan.& or lead- which adds up wt a lot quicker than carbon/ kevlar-I am a recovering weight-a holic & tired of "intead of looking for a place to save a pound- look for 16 places to save an ounce"..
« Last Edit: February 15, 2007, 03:35:27 AM by russ jensen »
speed is expensive-how fast do you want to go?-to soon old & to late smart.