Subscribe Today

Truly New & Exciting

Truly New & Exciting

Postby jhooper/HRE » February 11th, 2011, 10:34 am

Skidoo Ron,
I will advise you not to take sides and run your mouth about something which you have no clue. I did absolutely nothing wrong but unfortunately got accused of it by a person with a disorder,this is not an attack, just my opinion. John Hooper
jhooper/HRE
Member
 
Posts: 269
Joined: March 24th, 2005, 12:52 am
Location: goshen,nh

Truly New & Exciting

Postby proton » February 11th, 2011, 11:13 am

this is a slice of the scca regulation

1. The basic purpose of the roll cage is to protect the driver if
the car turns over, runs into an obstacle such as a guardrail or
catch fence, or is struck by another car. It shall be designed
to withstand compression forces from the weight of the car
coming down on the rollover structure and to take fore/aft and
lateral loads resulting from the car skidding along on its rollover
structure.
2. No portion of the safety roll cage shall have an aerodynamic
effect by creating a vertical thrust.
3. Roll cage or chassis design shall prevent engine intrusion into
the driver compartment.
4. Material:
a. Seamless, or DOM (Drawn Over Mandrel) mild steel tubing
(SAE 1010, 1020, 1025) or equivalent, or alloy steel
tubing (SAE, 4130) shall be used for all roll cage structures. Proof of use of alloy steel is the responsibility of the
entrant.
b. Minimum tubing sizes for all required roll cage elements
(All dimensions in inches):
Vehicle Weight Tubing Size (inches)
With Driver (outer diameter x wall thickness)
Up to 1700 lbs. 1.375 x 0.080
1701-2699 lbs. 1.50 x 0.095 or 1.625 x 0.080
Over 2699 lbs. 1.50 x .120 or 1.75 x 0.095

under 4,b...the language "all required cage elements" is key, the whole roll cage isnt spelled out...just certain [i]elements[/i] like the main hoop, front hoop(high or low)and their supports...how high the rear hoop is relative to the front hoop. what size tubing the cage is and the configuration is a bit fuzzy as long as it meets the specified element standards.

as far as the tunnel being on the right side, in back or in front is not important as long as the regulated [i]elements[/i] are right

for all who want to read the roll cage rules for formula/sports car can log onto scca website
[url=http://cms.scca.com/documents/2011%20Tech/2011%20GCR-printed%20version.pdf]scca formula and sport racing cars[/url]

start on page 110
proton
Member
 
Posts: 97
Joined: January 18th, 2004, 2:28 pm
Location: USA

Truly New & Exciting

Postby Ovals Forever » February 11th, 2011, 12:37 pm

Why do you guys keep bringing Shawn on this topic?
This topic is for John's idea, let it go, or start a new topic about Shawn.
Ovals Forever
Member
 
Posts: 346
Joined: March 21st, 2005, 7:20 pm
Location: Lisbon ND


Truly New & Exciting

Postby tonyave » February 11th, 2011, 1:07 pm

If you dig around in those rules, it seems to me there is wording about the bars being 2 inches minimum above helmet, although there are different specifics for different car types/cage types.
Tony
tonyave
 
Posts: 4
Joined: January 4th, 2008, 12:04 pm
Location: Mooresville, NC

Truly New & Exciting

Postby proton » February 11th, 2011, 2:17 pm

right again Tony... the main hoop has to be 2" above the helmet, I did read it somewhere in the 687 pages of the book... also if you draw an imaginary line from the top of the main hoop to the top of the front(lower)hoop, it cant touch the helmet...its all there...somewhere
proton
Member
 
Posts: 97
Joined: January 18th, 2004, 2:28 pm
Location: USA

Truly New & Exciting

Postby Norsk » February 11th, 2011, 4:15 pm

I am not trying to change the flow of a good idea, in any way. Are there going to have to be catch fences installed at tracks, since a higher center of gravity and a cage will results in rolls and tumbles, resulting in a danger for fans and off track action. It won't be as bad as a mini sprint, but still a consideration.
Norsk
 
Posts: 3
Joined: March 30th, 2002, 10:50 am
Location: northern MN

Truly New & Exciting

Postby jhooper/HRE » February 14th, 2011, 12:28 am

These sleds will have a similar c.g. to a Champ sled but they will actually be less likely to flip because they will be wider and have less grip {traction} front and rear than a Champ. When we do our testing we will design traction and carbide rules that will make these sleds very unlikely to high-side, we are aiming for rules that make these sleds slide quite a bit more than current Champs.
We have no intention of making these faster than a Champ just much less expensive, much tighter racing and easier to drive.
Dave Ostendorf plans to have one version of this creature on the ice in about a month, he is working on it now. John H.
jhooper/HRE
Member
 
Posts: 269
Joined: March 24th, 2005, 12:52 am
Location: goshen,nh

Truly New & Exciting

Postby Ski-DooRon » February 14th, 2011, 2:14 am

John
I would like to let you know I am In no way taking sides,and I don't think the threatening attitude towards me was needed, just thought people were being a little hard on him, including you, just my opion. I have talked to Shawn Before he approached you and I do know more than you think I know about the program he is working on.That being said lets leave that alone and move this TOPIC on with your project.
I am wondering why you are once again using only Polaris engines in your class structure. The history of motorsport racing has always had different brands of engines competing against each other? Why not let the other 600cc brand engines run in this new class. Question, would the chassis be able to be designed with the track on the left side instead of the right?
On another topic {unrelated here, I could not PM you} as we spoke a couple weeks ago about the indy sleds being harder to come by, allow the other brand sleds that have trailing arms compete in that class and add more model year indy's with the same chassis as the 89- 92 500's,it might grow it even more.I also did check that the 400 indy is only 2 hp less than a 500. I do not know if rotax, yahmaha,and arctic have engines in the HP range of the polaris engines?I feel that class would be much larger.
I do know that these racing circuits competing against each other are not helping get large crowds which are needed to keep this sport from attracting sponsors and racers. One local circuit in New York allowing the 340 liquid rotax running against a formula 500 is unrealistic, Something like 20HP advantage?I still feel until everyone consolodates, racing snowmobiles will be spread thin. Especially in this economy.

Ron Lance
Ski-DooRon
 
Posts: 1
Joined: February 6th, 2005, 12:42 pm
Location: Albany,NY

Truly New & Exciting

Postby kenlacy » February 14th, 2011, 2:25 am

By letting multiple engines in these clases - you open up tech nightmares and a significantly larger amount of ambiguity exists. Same would happen with the new outlaw class. If everyone knows what motor everyone else is running, there is a lot more peace. No bs excuses and less whinin. If a manufacturer wants to get involved, they can sponsor the class. The simple fact is, Polaris was the dominant sled maker from 85-02 so more and less expensive parts are available.

If the outlaw class takes off - I hope and believe it will - you will see offshoots where there may be less restrictions. But to start out that way, is a recipe for failure.
Recently I was asked to play in a golf tournament.

At first I said, "Naw, I haven't been playing that well."

Then they said to me, "Come on, it's for handicapped and blind kids."

Then I thought...




Chit, I could win this!
kenlacy
Member
 
Posts: 1598
Joined: October 25th, 2001, 2:26 pm
Location: Foooore!

Truly New & Exciting

Postby watcher » February 14th, 2011, 3:33 am

Ron, if you are talking about the F-500 Class? That class last year became a ISR Core Class. The rules got froozen until 2015, can be only open for Safety.

watcher
watcher
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: October 8th, 2002, 1:29 am
Location: where is waldo

PreviousNext

Return to Ovals & Enduros

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron