Unwritten Rule I Found The Hard Way ...

[rjwoods77]

Not going to get into specifics. Inquire to the rules commity and maybe they will post a notification about it. Your steering wheel can not be more than 10 inches from the front roll hoop. Doesnt specify in the rules but we got called on it when I submitted rules confirmation on the front hoop and bulkhead supports. This is 10" longitudal distance, tangental from the edge of the front roll hoop and the steering wheel. Will probably only affect a few cars out there but this is being mandated by the rules commity. The word "proximity" actually means "within 10 inches" for rule 3.3.1 B. I cant tell you how aggravated I am but at least they (Michael Royce in particular) have been responsive and nice and have given us a reasonable option to to meet the rules. This is defintely going to make part of my car ungainly and misplaced which also drives me up the wall because of how particular I am.

[rjwoods77]

Not going to get into specifics. Inquire to the rules commity and maybe they will post a notification about it. Your steering wheel can not be more than 10 inches from the front roll hoop. Doesnt specify in the rules but we got called on it when I submitted rules confirmation on the front hoop and bulkhead supports. This is 10" longitudal distance, tangental from the edge of the front roll hoop and the steering wheel. Will probably only affect a few cars out there but this is being mandated by the rules commity. The word "proximity" actually means "within 10 inches" for rule 3.3.1 B. I cant tell you how aggravated I am but at least they (Michael Royce in particular) have been responsive and nice and have given us a reasonable option to to meet the rules. This is defintely going to make part of my car ungainly and misplaced which also drives me up the wall because of how particular I am.

[Storbeck]

Crap

I have to go measure that now, we're going to be close.

[Dan G]

Rob, thanks for the heads up on our car as well.

[raska]

Do you know any further clarification? Since rollhoops and steering wheels are often at angles, and have at least an inch of thickness.

[Jetser]

In 2004 Formula Student we didn't had a problem with this:
http://www.dutracing.nl/pictures/albums/wpw-20041205/rs_DSC_95612004-07-11_0001.jpg

The front hoop is were the dampers are attached.

[Timmay!]

we found this out yesterday as well... and we were only asking about the height of the wheel. Looks like we have some cutting to do...

[rjwoods77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raska:
Do you know any further clarification? Since rollhoops and steering wheels are often at angles, and have at least an inch of thickness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said. Look at the car in the side view. Measure from the tangent of the surfaces of the front roll hoop to the steering wheel bar. This is how i understand the rule. Take a ruler and measure the distance with the ruler being parallel to the ground.

[Timmay!]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">they (Michael Royce in particular) have been responsive and nice and have given us a reasonable option to to meet the rules. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What option did they give you? They didnt give us any option. Any help would be appreciated. For us to meet that 10" rule, would almost require us to redo the entire front end of the frame.

[Marshall Grice]

slightly more information...

link (http://www.formulasae.org/forums/formula/dispatch.cgi/rules/docProfile/100101/d20060110190058/No/3.3.1.B%20Front%20Roll%20Hoop%20L_84A4E)

[Dan G]

Our 2005 car measured 14" in this dimension. There was nothing mentioned by anyone going through tech or competition last year (or in the rules, this or any previous year) that would've clued us in to designing our chassis to meet this requirement.

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/albums/FSAE05/IMG_1606.sized.jpg

Looking at that photo, our ergo looks a bit cartoonish. We have the driver in a more natural position this year, reclined, legs straiter, and arms at his sides instead of flapping in the breeze like chicken wings...

http://evilallianceracing.com/ipw-web/gallery/albums/FSAE06Fab/DSCF3073.jpg

Now we're just hoping we can find a workable solution that doesn't involve tossing the completed frame in the trash and starting from scratch. We have some ideas, but finding out about this serious of a rule change through word of mouth just 5 months before the race isn't that great of a feeling.

[Homemade WRX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rob Woods:
Like I said. Look at the car in the side view. Measure from the tangent of the surfaces of the front roll hoop to the steering wheel bar. This is how i understand the rule. Take a ruler and measure the distance with the ruler being parallel to the ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
yeah, got our response yesterday and they directed me to FAQ 25 or 26...so it looks like I'm not the only one finding this unwritten rule as a suprise.

[Ben Beacock]

Anyone else have problems with the official forums and Firefox? Is it just me?

Ben

[rjwoods77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ben Beacock:
Anyone else have problems with the official forums and Firefox? Is it just me?

Ben </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too. Works only on IE I think.

[Michael Royce]

The rule that Rob and Micah have fallen foul of is 3.3.1.B, which defines the Front Hoop as "a roll bar above the driver's legs, in proximity to the steering wheel." The "in proximity to the steering wheel" has been there for many, many years. Although we have never defined "proximity", one has always assumed that the front roll hoop is close to the steering wheel to protect the driver's hands, among other things.

Needless to say, this topic was not on the Rules Commiittee's "radar screens" until a team asked if they could move their Front Roll Hoop down to mid-shin level. Almost immediately, three other teams, ODU, Buffalo and U of M-Dearborn, sent us questions on other topics that raised a flag on this issue. Some of the teams are pushing things just a little too far, and the intent of the rule was being violated, (Rule 1.7.6). A line had to be drawn. Hence the interpretation that has been published and also sent to these schools. All three of the above mentioned schools have been, or are being, sent suggestions on how they might make acceptable changes.

Incidentally, the Delft car from the 2004 Formula Student event, which is shown above, had some other issues that were the focus of our attention at that event. These "issues" resulted in a Rules change for 2005.

[James Waltman]

Back in the day... (http://fsae.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/125607348/m/3646082861/r/3026029961#3026029961)

I emailed Carey Cyphert (Admin) and he said that forum didn't support Netscape. That might have been pre-Firefox but same deal.

[Erich Ohlde]

We were the mid-shin school mentioned in Michael Royce's post. The rules committee mentioned FIA and SCCA rules on this subject so we went to the 06 FIA rules for clarification on the front roll hoop subject.

[Homemade WRX]

well, just sent in new pics with driver in car and dimensions of wheel to front hoop...crossing my fingers and hoping 12" is acceptable...

[jsmooz]

Micah - We pretty much did the same thing. We were told that if you can get 12" to work then why not 10". Below is part of the response we got. Keep in mind everyone's design is different and the judges might have a different recommendation for you.

"With your specific design, one would have thought that if you can make 12 inches, then you should be able to get it down to close to 10 inches. With your design, to reduce the dimension an inch (or two), we would be willing to accept 1 (or maybe even 2) extra upper front roll hoop supplemental tube(s), following the line of upper portion of your current Front Roll Hoop, running from one upper frame member over the top to the other upper frame member, stitch welded to the current upper portion of your Front Roll Hoop. They would have to be welded to both of the upper frame rails, of course. It would not look pretty, but it would be structurally sound, and meet the intent of the rules."

We plan on looking at our options and sending some pics once we figure out a course of action. Our main problem that our possible driver height spread is from 5'8" to 6'5". This obviously results in a larger window which controls must be placed.

[rjwoods77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jsmooz:
Micah - We pretty much did the same thing. We were told that if you can get 12" to work then why not 10". Below is part of the response we got. Keep in mind everyone's design is different and the judges might have a different recommendation for you.

"With your specific design, one would have thought that if you can make 12 inches, then you should be able to get it down to close to 10 inches. With your design, to reduce the dimension an inch (or two), we would be willing to accept 1 (or maybe even 2) extra upper front roll hoop supplemental tube(s), following the line of upper portion of your current Front Roll Hoop, running from one upper frame member over the top to the other upper frame member, stitch welded to the current upper portion of your Front Roll Hoop. They would have to be welded to both of the upper frame rails, of course. It would not look pretty, but it would be structurally sound, and meet the intent of the rules."

We plan on looking at our options and sending some pics once we figure out a course of action. Our main problem that our possible driver height spread is from 5'8" to 6'5". This obviously results in a larger window which controls must be placed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should respond:

"With your specific rules set, one would have thought that if you can write on sentance on the intent of the rules, then you should be able to write two to make it so there is no mistaking the intent of the rule." http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Homemade WRX]

we were told the same thing...what thoey don't know is that we already stretched to get to 12". we have no other option but to chop up our frame at this point...you think if they wanted a rule to follow a specific dimension, they would have written that dimension into the rule...?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jsmooz:
Micah - We pretty much did the same thing. We were told that if you can get 12" to work then why not 10". Below is part of the response we got. Keep in mind everyone's design is different and the judges might have a different recommendation for you.

"With your specific design, one would have thought that if you can make 12 inches, then you should be able to get it down to close to 10 inches. With your design, to reduce the dimension an inch (or two), we would be willing to accept 1 (or maybe even 2) extra upper front roll hoop supplemental tube(s), following the line of upper portion of your current Front Roll Hoop, running from one upper frame member over the top to the other upper frame member, stitch welded to the current upper portion of your Front Roll Hoop. They would have to be welded to both of the upper frame rails, of course. It would not look pretty, but it would be structurally sound, and meet the intent of the rules."

We plan on looking at our options and sending some pics once we figure out a course of action. Our main problem that our possible driver height spread is from 5'8" to 6'5". This obviously results in a larger window which controls must be placed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Dan G]

Yeeeeeeehaaaaaawwwwww! Hey Maaaa, check out them thar front roll hoop! Schweeeeet!
http://monsterphoto.iwarp.com/images/48heavy205a5.jpg

We can complain and joke, but at this point the judges have made their ruling and we just need to meet it and move on. Yeah, its kindof BS to have to make these kind of changes so last minute and without warning, but worse things could happen. I'd certainly rather fix something now than after we fail tech inspection! I just hope that:
1) All of the other teams that haven't heard about this rule change do hear about it before competition. I'm thinking that a boldfaced link to the rule clarification forum (and perhaps another changes summary sheet) should be sent out to all the team captains ASAP.
2) Any teams that have the unfortune of not hearing about these changes are still required to meet them before competing.

[Psychosis]

im not trying to upset anyone or step on any toes here, but the rule is there for your protection. if the rule is taken to the extreme then the front bulkhead could be the front roll hoop "because it covers your toes, which are part of your legs".

By definition, Proximity:

"the property of being close together or next to one another."

i suppose the trigger word there is "next", which most would describe as less than a foot away, though "close" could mean anything.

Surely its detrimental to your chassis (with the exception of carbon/honeycomb monocoques) to move your front and rear roll hoops further apart? the side impact structure is longer, hence requires more 1.6mm tubing = heavier when 1mm tubing is permissible beyond the hoops. further, the longer the section the more acute the angles become, making them less equilateral and hence your chassis (unless otherwise triangulated) starts to assume the torsional rigidity of a wet spongehttp://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

my personal feeling is that the rule should possibly have a further clarification that the roll hoop be located longitudinally behind the drivers knees (prevents drivers sitting in the foetal position, which is dangerous in a crash). though this has the knock on effect of slowing emergency egress, but we've never had a problem meeting the 5second rule.

i do however think it might be a little harsh to expect you to meet the rule this year, i would have expected it be changed for next year. though you've got to remember, safety first. i do feel sorry for you guys, id be gutted too if i had to weld on 2-3 extra rollhoops!! (weight and looks go out the window.) is there no way you could move your seat forward 2 inches and slouch further (bend your knees more) in order to bring you that 2" further forward?

just my thoughts, please, no bashing, be constructive

[Garlic]

I hate to side with 'the man' here, but c'mon guys.

Do you really think 20% of the wheelbase of your car is 'in proximity'?

If you can stick your head in there, is it really 'in proximity?

I can sympathize because it's likely a case of schools looking at photos and saying 'well they did it so we will pass too.' But, surely you don't think you were designing to the intent of the rule with roll hoops like that!

Certainly in this case you might say a number would have been better. But... these rules have been the same for a LONG time and there haven't been these problems. The rules were written vague on purpose to keep restrictions to a minimum. They want cars to have as few restrictions as possible so rules did not spell out exact dimensions except where absolutely needed.

Unfortunately liberal interpretations have meant that there needs to be a number now...

[DaveC]

I'll have to agree with the rules comitte as well. Looking at Delft and Dearborn's cars, while beautiful, it doesnt seem like they are built to the intent of the rule. As a result, the driver seems pretty exposed in those cars. That really sucks to have to change your chasis design at this point, but better now than later, I guess...

[rjwoods77]

First of all, what other schools have done for the past 3 years made it seem okay and why woldnt we think it would be otherwise. Apparently the Delft car changed some of the rules but I guess the one in question wasnt. So why would one assume that it wouldnt be okay. Change some but leave unspoken limits on others. That doesnt really make sense.

I cant see what you mean by safety. How does choking up the front roll hoop make it safer. All that does is close up the open space. So on our car that means the front roll hoop would go from right at our knees to 4 inchs up our leg. This makes the car safer in what way. If we flipped it it wouldnt make a difference because the car upside down would be about 3 inches from my helmet versus about 3 feet away from my legs and about 1.5 feet from the front roll hoop. My setup is more safe than average fsae car because my heels are at the front wheel centerline, my knees at the front roll hoop and the rest is in between the side impact structure which on my car is way more reinforced than the average car. I will go as far as saying that my frame is safer than 95 percent of the field that builds "normal" frames. I think cars that have long nose structures that have the front wheel centerline about mid thigh, are less safe because of your legs just being out in space with not a whole hell of alot of reinforcement. So I must disagree with thoughts of less safety with these style of cages. I guess the only way it could be less safe is if a car was dropped near vertical into the cockpit and I dont think that will be anytime soon.

[Psychosis]

With safety, my thoughts are directed to the Dearborn car pictured on the previous page. it seems, to me, in the realm of possibility that during a violent rollover (however unlikely) that the legs may exit the vehicle. this is not good for obvious reasons. from your description this doesnt apply to "your" car(couldnt help it http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, look at how many times you use "my", isnt it an "our" car http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif).

" I will go as far as saying that my frame is safer than 95 percent of the field that builds "normal" frames"

thats quite a claim! just curious what makes your frame better (not a jibe, being sincere here)

[rjwoods77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Psychosis:
With safety, my thoughts are directed to the Dearborn car pictured on the previous page. it seems, to me, in the realm of possibility that during a violent rollover (however unlikely) that the legs may exit the vehicle. this is not good for obvious reasons. from your description this doesnt apply to "your" car(couldnt help it http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, look at how many times you use "my", isnt it an "our" car http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif).

" I will go as far as saying that my frame is safer than 95 percent of the field that builds "normal" frames"

thats quite a claim! just curious what makes your frame better (not a jibe, being sincere here) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont see how the legs could even begin to do that when your hips are strapped down. I have personally been in a baja car when it crashed/flipped/rolled during the race and the closest overhead bar to my legs was about mid shin and my legs never even moved. Also with how compact the footbox ends up being when you get all the stuff in there plus the steering wheel and column being directly in the way of getting out the chances are even less. Mini baja frames are very typical of this design and nothing like that has ever happened int he past, even with some pretty horrifing crashes. Hell, RIT mini baja had cars for 4 years straight that had the drivers knees past the side impact structure and never had legs pop out. And they are famous for rolling cars at events. I really think that is an unrealistic situation. I think my frame is more protective because there is a major riser tube at ever joint of the legs in case of side impact. Joints are more important to protect then bones because you cant fix broken bones easy. Joints are another story. The shorter stubbier, taller nature of my frame lends well to impacts better. Not being a prick about all of this either. Just dont think they are accurate statements. This is oversized go karting. You wanna see real safety concerned engineering then go look at a baja car. That car took a spill down a 50 foot cliff and didnt even get hurt. I know if we did the same with a formula car the guy would have had some serious injuries. Apples and oranges but formula is by far easier to stay safer. I think alot of people/judges take this as the all mighty, holier than everything race series. As long as a throttle doesnt stick and fuel lines dont bust you are safe. i cant even begin to understand this .095 minimum wall thickness deal. Baja has been using thin wall equivalents for years and getting it some really serious crashes and they dont have a problem. Again they have minimum head clearance rules that make formula look like a c-hair but it works good. If a car rolled in formula the worst it could get would be a concussion from smacking your head on the frame rail next to your head that has no regulations unlike mini baja.

[rjwoods77]

Example for legs not comming out. They have been doing this since 2000 in order to keep the wheelbase as short as possible. I personally never felt this was safe and didnt do it my self but my knees were always ahead of the "front roll hoop" area.


http://www.rit.edu/~bajawww/images/Oregon/cwdata/Untitled-7%20copy.html

http://www.rit.edu/~bajawww/images/Oregon/cwdata/Untitled-6%20copy.html

http://www.rit.edu/~bajawww/images/utah03/cwdata/P1000342.html

[Psychosis]

some good points, im not trying to aggrovate you, so chill. I like your thinking on protecting joints. did you try suggesting they change the rule to front roll hoop rearward of mr 95th percentiles knees? (meeting the intent of the rule in my opinion). you could say that rollhoop to steering wheel distance is a driver preference.

[Schumi_Jr]

Rob,

I know it sucks but i think you're wasting you're time on this discussion. I think there are other things you could be doing that will score you more points at the competition...

[rjwoods77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schumi_Jr:
Rob,

I know it sucks but i think you're wasting you're time on this discussion. I think there are other things you could be doing that will score you more points at the competition... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shumi,

Just passing time while I am FEA'ing things at work. I am not bitching about the rule. Already made my changes. Just having a conversation.

Psycho,

I am not getting aggrivated at all. Just talking about stuff. I didnt suggest anything to the rules people. My situation with that is a done deal. Just having a little fun ribbing the intent.

Everyone,

Can someone post a video of UW Stout mini-bajas car doing the most incredible jump ever. They were hitting the last jump of the race and they decided to just air it out and break the car if they had to. Be a neat thing to look at for people who have never seen what a real good mini baja can do. Anyone?

[Ben Beacock]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Psychosis:
some good points, im not trying to aggrovate you, so chill. I like your thinking on protecting joints. did you try suggesting they change the rule to front roll hoop rearward of mr 95th percentiles knees? (meeting the intent of the rule in my opinion). you could say that rollhoop to steering wheel distance is a driver preference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure that would sit well with the insurance companies too. They would rather pay to set a highly bruised or lightly cracked femur than deal with a kneecap thats smashed to bits.

I've flipped a fullsize racecar and when I landed square on the roof my knee hit the steering column (everything else was fine). It wasn't even broken, but it hurt like hell and I couldn't walk for a week.

[jsmooz]

DaveC - In response to your comment about legs falling out. That really can't happen. One, as Rob Woods stated you are strapped in. Two, the area at the front roll hoop doesn't allow for much leg room. We design to be able to put our legs through with a little extra wiggle room for the shoe size 13 guy on our team and not much else. The only way you'd be able to get you legs out is if you curled up into the fetal position, but that also isn't possible because of the steering wheel.

Honestly, we were concerned about the head clearance when designing the car. We didn't take much notice to the location of the front hoop relative to the driver's legs, mainly because we didn't know we had a problem. Driver's knees don't even come close to that plane so we didn't think it was a problem. I can see the judges point of view on this and while I might not fully agree with it I understand their intent. It's better to change now then at competition.

[Homemade WRX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Psychosis:
some good points, im not trying to aggrovate you, so chill. I like your thinking on protecting joints. did you try suggesting they change the rule to front roll hoop rearward of mr 95th percentiles knees? (meeting the intent of the rule in my opinion). you could say that rollhoop to steering wheel distance is a driver preference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think that they want the knees contained (although my original thoughts) because our driver is inclined so that his knees go under the front hoop, and our nose isn't long, endangering our legs in any frontal collision (side, frontal, roll, etc...). We submitted pictures of this and they still wanted us to change our steering wheel distance from our imptoved 12" to 10"...
with out frame as it is now, we have safer (quicker) driver egress and more head clearance in a roll over...our tall driver has 4" as tested at competition.