new 2011 rule changes

[Bob Drury]

  Sparky, just as a heads up, when the lateral rule was first written, it said 2 inches to structure.  In the next paragraph it said 1 inch approved padding was manditory which meant, as written, you would have 2 inches total to slide your helmet and hans device into place.  That was when I sent in a potential rules clarification.                  Bob

[Bob Drury]

  One more add to my knee jerk post:  The "hans" rule for laydown streamliners when no such device was available for purchase.  I rest my case ( until another delusion reappears)................   Bob

[Stainless1]

Bob...Bob...Bob... your only delusion is that you can still jerk your knees...    well maybe not your only ... 
we still have our fingers crossed that someone (DJ) will certify a HNR for a lay down that won't contribute to or cause a broken neck.   

BTW, could you send me your wallet, I need to check the lining to see if you hide money from yourself

[Bob Drury]

   Stainless, sorry, I am still paying off my gas bill from Speedweek...............  Hey, I still think you lifted it when you were here...................   Sign me, Bob the Ranter.................

[fredvance]

Well Bill since you insist. It sucks we are stuck with "race" tires.

  Fred

[Bob Drury]

  Look out, the damn bikers have hyjacked the thread.........................

[jl222]

 The Thompson video has a clear shot at clearance problems with extending helmets side supports.
 Look at front leading edge of helmet, then at window net and draw a line to TOP roll cage. Then try to get out if
support rule was in effect keeping in mind that support should be in middle of helmet which is another thing wrong
with Thompson's car.


                    JL222

[Bob Drury]

   ... and who is to say that Danny didn't loosed the belts "a little" after the starter tightened them.  I speak from experience in saying every time I have made a pass, the seat belts hurt, and thats the way I want em..........................   He doesn't appear to be "hunched down" by the shoulder belts. Boy, that is a classic shot of how bad egress will be with the lateral restraints TO THE FRONT OF THE HELMET.   Bob

[bvillercr]

Here's a video of the run and him getting out at the end.  The new extention rule would make it even more difficult for him to get out.

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvZ2rnCdXU&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Sent from my iPhone

[saltfever]

Sorry to break the current topic guys. It is incredibly important and I am in sync with your thoughts. Maybe it is important enough for a thread all by itself? But this thread is rule changes and we have a couple of things going on here all at once. I would like to interupt for a brief moment and bring back the gas coupe radiator deal. I'll then go to the back of the line . . 

[saltfever]

First my car never had a six cylinder in it. It came from the Ford Factory with a 260 V8 in 1964. They first put a 260 V8 in the Falcon series in the rounded 1963 Sprint model. My new 4 core radiator was a complete bolt in, no sheet metal was ever changed. LOL.Tom G.

My how time plays tricks with us, Tom. Since the Falcon had two optional engine lengths, (straight 6 or V-8) the factory punched two sets of holes in the fender wells of all cars for the radiators support. Since you had a V-8 you probably didn’t notice another set of holes further forward. They were there for the 6cyl option. When I installed my V-8 I kept the radiator in the forward position and installed a new 4 row core that was 3” thicker than the old one. I had so much room I even had to add a water pump spacer to the V-8 to get the fan closer to the radiator.

The point I was making is when a body has a 4, 6, or 8 cyl engine option there are different radiator positions built in at the factory. In later years that flexibility goes away because there may be only one engine for that OEM body and therefore only one radiator size. If you do an engine swap and need a bigger radiator the new rule prevents that. It is highly unlikely a larger radiator is an aero advantage. Maybe smaller, but not larger. Why did they make such a rule!

[desotoman]

Saltfever,

Here is the answer to your question from another thread.

Tom G.


"Brian,

Mike is correct. If your replacement radiator is the same square inches or more as OEM you are good. The intent of this rule is to prevent the cutting down in height of a radiator or using a narrow core so that air flow in to the front of the car can be blocked by panels.

Mike's suggestion of #2 is a good solution.

DW"


PS. Since my Falcon was a V8 from the factory I never had a reason to look for the straight 6 radiator mounts. And yes they put both motors in the car, I was just lucky I bought a V8. LOL. Two good examples of how to do the same thing different ways.

[saltfever]

Mike is correct. If your replacement radiator is the same square inches or more as OEM you are good. DW"[/font][/color] 

Many thanks, Tom! What a difference two words makes! Now all I have to do is get an email from the car chief to confirm that. Putting this forum in the log book has little value when under the tarp at tech. Also, don't want to put Dan in another "SaltCat" brouhaha.  Has the Chief Car Inspector been confirmed for the new year? Will Steve do it again?

[saltfever]

Helmet Lateral Movement:
What does inclusive of structure deflection mean? “Structure” means steel tubing to me. It does not mean, padding, cushion, or dampening material. How much padding are we allowed?

NASCAR has spent $millions on R&D. Is our padding thickness less than NASCAR’s scientifically engineered solution?  Does SCTA have engineering data showing LSR G-forces are less than NASCAR’s. In the absence of good data I prefer to trust an engineered NASCAR solution. (Assuming it can be installed in a manner you can exit the car with ease).

BTW, what happened to the bailout requirement. I can't find it in the rule book.  

[saltfever]

I just checked,,, the opening between my seats lateral head restraint (side to side) is 4.09 inches wider than my helmet.

So all I have to do is add a sliver of padding to be a 2" per side max movement.

And that is my concern, Charles. What will happen if your helmet wacks that steel structure at 30 or 40 Gs without any padding or just "a sliver" of padding? I am not clear on this rule. I want 2" or 3" of good padding plus free space. So how wide is my lateral structure?  (2" of padding + 2" free space) x 2  + helmet width? Is that correct?