SCCA rule changes

[Chuckster]

Hi,
I'm with the SCCA Solo Modified Advisory Committee (MAC) and I'm gathering info to use in a rule change proposal for FSAE running at US SCCA events. An FSAE faculty member as well as non-FSAE SCCA people have written to the MAC about this.

The aim is make the SCCA rules more appropriate for FSAE running with SCCA. For example: Not allowing cars older than current is a rule that should be changed so you can test and compete in your older cars legally.

Someone outside of SAE competition who buys one of your older cars should also be able to run it legally at all SCCA events including Nationals in Nebraska.

If SCCA would simply require that all FSAE cars be legal to any FSAE year chassis and safety rules along with current year FSAE engine and aerodynamics rules, is that enough to be fair to all?

Does anyone see any problem with this?

Thanks for your help,

Chuck Voboril

[Chuckster]

Hi,
I'm with the SCCA Solo Modified Advisory Committee (MAC) and I'm gathering info to use in a rule change proposal for FSAE running at US SCCA events. An FSAE faculty member as well as non-FSAE SCCA people have written to the MAC about this.

The aim is make the SCCA rules more appropriate for FSAE running with SCCA. For example: Not allowing cars older than current is a rule that should be changed so you can test and compete in your older cars legally.

Someone outside of SAE competition who buys one of your older cars should also be able to run it legally at all SCCA events including Nationals in Nebraska.

If SCCA would simply require that all FSAE cars be legal to any FSAE year chassis and safety rules along with current year FSAE engine and aerodynamics rules, is that enough to be fair to all?

Does anyone see any problem with this?

Thanks for your help,

Chuck Voboril

[vreihen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuckster:
If SCCA would simply require that all FSAE cars be legal to any FSAE year chassis and safety rules along with current year FSAE engine and aerodynamics rules, is that enough to be fair to all?

Does anyone see any problem with this?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chuck,

I have no problem with trying to encourage better FSAE participation at our (SCCA) events. My only concern is from a safety perspective, especially since you're proposing that *any* FSAE spec back to day one is to be the governing safety regulations for the car being entered. I'd like to strongly recommend some language be inserted into this proposal that requires all FSAE cars competing in Solo events to at least have to adhere to the current Solo roll bar specs or the correct vintage FSAE specs...whichever is greater. I don't have a library of every year's FSAE vehicle/safety specs to reference, so I don't know if the two specs have been compatible all along. I also don't know if there's a mechanism in place for FSAE to discuss/notify SCCA of any spec changes, like if they decide to allow 1/4" x .001" unobtanium tubing as an alternate rollbar material.

Speaking of documentation libraries, I assume that it would be the responsibility of the entrant to make available a complete copy of the correct FSAE specs for whatever vintage their car is in case of legality questions at larger events, just like the current factory service manual rule in stock Solo classes?

One last thought. Since we essentially have no way to police "barn find" FSAE cars to know if they were ever entered in an FSAE event or during what years, how about opening up the class to FSAE clones as well? There's apparently a growing demand in the sled-head circles for a 600cc motorcycle-powered formula car class, and FSAE has been nice enough to provide a great set of rules for any coneheads who want to build cars along these lines for Solo events.....

[Yellow Ranger]

If you look at most past scca event with fsae car (nationals and uta weekend is all i have been in) then you'll know that you really don't have to worry about a barn find fsae car taking awards and breaking hearts- unless its at a local even, in which case, who cares

Most of the guys with crazy motorcycle powered cars go into a-mod so they compete in their own ridiculous class with their own 'safety standards'...

If you look at last years results for nationals, the oldest car there was south dakota's 05 car from the 19 competitors- all of which follow roughly the same rules...

I like the idea to expand this into a more broad field and get more people involve. It would not be hard to find that vehicle's year rule book to check a few things- hell, all they're going to check anyways is maybe restrictor, battery security, and all around jankyness of the vehicle- there are way less safe vehicles they should be worried about like the a-mods and those damn c-prepareds..

[Chuckster]

Thanks guys.

Making it the individual competitor's responsibility to supply correct year rules references and enginering analysis documentation for alternate materials is already in line with how SCCA works.

Complying to current safety rules is the probably the major quandry. It could be a show stopper for all pre 2009 cars to be required to upgrade to new cockpit template specs and crush zones, for instance. Are the cockpit templates not actually regarded as safety related?

Has anyone in FSAE shown by analysis or by example that early year FSAE safety rules were inadequate to protect the drivers?

I hope that all FSAE safety rule upgrades over the years were really meant to be competitive design exercises for "nice, but not proven to be necessary" reasons.

Chuck Voboril

[Drew Price]

Chuck,

A few teams have done destructive impact testing of their old frames, I believe namely Chalmers Uni, who put out some sort of documentation of the excercise, which I heard directly led to the new rule for shoulder harness mounting tubes going from 1" x 0.065" tubing to 1" x 0.095 tubing. You should be able to find the post for that one, it is about 2 years old I think.

Anyone willing to share physical testing they did to pass structural equivalency for monocoque cars would be close to what you're looking for, but you'd have to find people willing to share their reports and data.

Best,
Drew

[Chuckster]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Drew Price:
Chuck,

A few teams have done destructive impact testing of their old frames, I believe namely Chalmers Uni, who put out some sort of documentation of the excercise, which I heard directly led to the new rule for shoulder harness mounting tubes going from 1" x 0.065" tubing to 1" x 0.095 tubing. You should be able to find the post for that one, it is about 2 years old I think.



Best,
Drew </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, this may mean requiring a certain year forward (would most current year be the best choice?) for the safety aspect of eligibility of all old cars.

Again, can anyone tell me if the new cockpit template is one that would be regarded as safety related?

Summary of my questions: Would making the safety rules as well as motor and aero ALL current year be the best way to make it both fair and safe for everyone?

Last, a comment to perhaps keep some people from getting spun up unnecessarily:

There was a question at one time about 2 years ago about whether to continue to let FSAE run in AM with FSAE moveable underbody aero as on the UTA cars.

IMHO that issue is dead along with most of our concerns over FSAE safety rules being "good" enough" for the generally higher speed SCCA events.

FSAE is obviously becoming more independent of AM since "regular AM" no longer depends upon FSAE to make min particpation in order to remain a National class.

No official opinion, just mine, but FSAE probably has much more chance now to be allowed to run their own construction/safety rules with no SCCA overrides. Also IMHO more chance now of FSAE becoming a truly separate class from A-mod with its own FSAE SCCA National trophy.

[D Collins Jr]

I'd hate to see it be illegal to take out our 08, 06, or even 05 car on the basis that they aren't the "current year." That would drastically set back driver training efforts, and in all honesty, doesn't make any sense. If anything, I'd kind of feel better about those cars being out there. If something's going to break and cause an issue, it's not going to be something that's been cycled over that many years. If something was wrong or unsafe in 2005, we know about it now, and we've done something about it. What was safe then is still safe enough now. And besides, I've never seen new members work as hard as when you say "Assemble this and you can drive."

The templates could be called a safety rule, since the "test" that brought about the requirement was a frontal crash test. But does the fact that there are templates now mean that last years cars are unsafe? It shouldn't. Honestly, this is something that varies from team to team, based on experience and attention to detail. If a team can't upkeep their 08 car, their 09 car is liable to have a lot of issues too. But at the end of the day, most collisions you can get into in an FSAE car, from ANY year, templates or not, will probably allow you to walk away, unless you hit something headon. And if I remember right, the major checks at my local SCCA events for tech are throttle cable, steering, and the classic "bump the suspension" test. I've seen things break and crashes occur in FSAE cars, and there is no need for an ambulance to be involved.

I know this got a little lengthy, but I really feel that we shouldn't outlaw older cars on the basis of new rules, some of which have the tertiary goal of forcing some redesign onto teams. And if we want to focus on safety at SCCA events, I can think of a few places to start before cutting these cars out. I've seen plenty of unqualified corner workers and not just poor but horrible communication from the trailer to corners and corner to corner, and not gapping cars enough come to mind right away.