Interesting "new" rule change

[Maverik]

I just came across this in the official rules discussion area of the sae.org website and wanted to make sure everyone knew of the new change. I definitely just found out, and more than likely that means some or most of you will be finding out as well. This quote is taken copied and pasted from http://www.formulasae.org/forums/formula/dispatch.cgi/r...%20Clarification.doc (http://www.formulasae.org/forums/formula/dispatch.cgi/rules/docProfile/100186/d20071203214329/No/Roll%20Hoop%20Helmet%20Clarification.doc)
____________________________

FORMULA SAE RULES CLARIFICATION
3.3.4 ROLL HOOPS


In answering some recent questions from teams both in the USA and the UK, the Rules Committee has noticed a disturbing trend that has not been previously apparent.

It appears that a number of teams are moving their Main Hoop forward so that it is over the top of the driver's head (or conversely moving the driver rearwards so that his/her head is under the Main Hoop). While this is not specifically prohibited by the Rules, it does result in the back of the helmet being exposed rearwards of the Main Hoop, and in some instances non-compliance with the intent of the first sentence of Rule 3.3.4 which states that:
"The driver's head and hands must not contact the ground in any rollover attitude."�

The Rules Committee is well aware that most teams have finalized their designs for 2008 and are well into their build phase. However, it is appropriate that the above trend is stopped. Therefore, after a great deal of discussion among members of the Rules Committee, and taking all the relevant factors into account, we have decided that for the 2008 Formula SAE Competitions, the following Rules Clarification will apply:
"When seated normally and restrained by the Driver's Restraint System, a straight line drawn from the top of the Main Hoop to the base of the Main Hoop Bracing or other approved structure, must clear by 50.8 mm (2 inches) the helmet of all the team's drivers."�

There will be further discussion on this topic within the Rules Committee for 2009 and beyond.

Michael Royce,
Chairman,
FSAE Rules Committee
3rd December, 2007
_____________________________

[Maverik]

I just came across this in the official rules discussion area of the sae.org website and wanted to make sure everyone knew of the new change. I definitely just found out, and more than likely that means some or most of you will be finding out as well. This quote is taken copied and pasted from http://www.formulasae.org/forums/formula/dispatch.cgi/r...%20Clarification.doc (http://www.formulasae.org/forums/formula/dispatch.cgi/rules/docProfile/100186/d20071203214329/No/Roll%20Hoop%20Helmet%20Clarification.doc)
____________________________

FORMULA SAE RULES CLARIFICATION
3.3.4 ROLL HOOPS


In answering some recent questions from teams both in the USA and the UK, the Rules Committee has noticed a disturbing trend that has not been previously apparent.

It appears that a number of teams are moving their Main Hoop forward so that it is over the top of the driver's head (or conversely moving the driver rearwards so that his/her head is under the Main Hoop). While this is not specifically prohibited by the Rules, it does result in the back of the helmet being exposed rearwards of the Main Hoop, and in some instances non-compliance with the intent of the first sentence of Rule 3.3.4 which states that:
"The driver's head and hands must not contact the ground in any rollover attitude."�

The Rules Committee is well aware that most teams have finalized their designs for 2008 and are well into their build phase. However, it is appropriate that the above trend is stopped. Therefore, after a great deal of discussion among members of the Rules Committee, and taking all the relevant factors into account, we have decided that for the 2008 Formula SAE Competitions, the following Rules Clarification will apply:
"When seated normally and restrained by the Driver's Restraint System, a straight line drawn from the top of the Main Hoop to the base of the Main Hoop Bracing or other approved structure, must clear by 50.8 mm (2 inches) the helmet of all the team's drivers."�

There will be further discussion on this topic within the Rules Committee for 2009 and beyond.

Michael Royce,
Chairman,
FSAE Rules Committee
3rd December, 2007
_____________________________

[Steve O]

I find it more interesting that enough teams are that much in the dark that they had to make this a rule... we had always just figured that was their intent to begin with!

Steve

[ben]

What I can't believe is that the SAE can't just accept that the community chose this site as their place to discuss FSAE rather than the "official" but technically inferior SAE forum.

The fact that they don't post official announcements here is just petty.

Ben

[flavorPacket]

almost as petty as changing rules AFTER THE CARS HAVE BEEN BUILT!

[Sathersc]

Going through tech inspection in Detroit last year, the judges praised the fact we did recess the drivers head into the roll hoop. Our driver sat with his head just slightly foreword of mid-way so the clarification wasn't an issue, but there are only so many ways to get a 6'1.5" male wearing a helmet to have a 2" clearance from the roll hoop plane.

That being said, I check the "official" forums ever other week just to make sure nothing like this pops up and bites us.

[MalcolmG]

MR mentioned this to us at FSAE-Australasia, as we are a team that has the main hoop just behind the centre of the driver's helmet, and they tested us too, by putting their broomstick between our main hoop and our rear bulkhead - which we passed. It doesn't really seem to be that big of a deal, I can't imagine many teams would come anywhere near failing it unless they have their main hoop forward of the driver's helmet!

[Matt N]

Its rather easy to fail if you are attempting a fully stressed non-monocoque rear 4 cylinder installation with the driver sitting under the rollhoop. (our original design)

Matt

[Matt N]

MalcolmG,

While we are talking about rules, can you share what the difficulties that your team's monocoque had passing tech this last Australia competition? I'm quite curious, as from what I heard it wasn't minor.

Matt

[flavorPacket]

When you have a 60" wheelbase and the engine and driver less than 1.5" apart, it's pretty easy to fail.

[Grant Mahler]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flavorPacket:
When you have a 60" wheelbase and the engine and driver less than 1.5" apart, it's pretty easy to fail. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's wrong with either of these?

[Mully]

We didn't really have any problems with our monocoque passing tech inspection, it was just some minor interpretation descrepencies in the roll hoop bracing angle and harness mounting which we were able to fully justify to the scrutineers anyway.

[fade]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grant Mahler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flavorPacket:
When you have a 60" wheelbase and the engine and driver less than 1.5" apart, it's pretty easy to fail. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's wrong with either of these? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With a shorter wheelbase the angle the "broomstick" makes with horizontal increases intruding on the space the drivers head can occupy during the test.

[Austin]

any hints on what the 09 rules are likely to be? The 2in rule, Roll hoop completely behind driver??

[Steve O]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flavorPacket:
almost as petty as changing rules AFTER THE CARS HAVE BEEN BUILT! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not going to lie, that rule has been posted since a few weeks after they put out the rule book.

The rule doesn't say anything about not putting your head behind the roll hoop, it is just saying that if you do, the same rule applies for behind the hoop as in front... main hoop to front hoop plane and main hoop to rear bulkhead are both measured. There really isn't a change unless you assumed that you could put your head behind the roll hoop in order to AVOID the 2 inch rule all together; which as I implied before would be dumb because then your head could be crushed in a roll over.

[The Bunker]

It does kind of suck that they made this clarification in december......after our chassis was designed and built. Thanks to that, they declared the rear box of our car not to be an approved structure which would have easily passed the 2" rule?? So we had to add 5 pounds to our car and run tubes from the main hoop all the way to the back of our car. Kind of destroyed our team goals wieght wise!

[screwdriver]

Just to confirm, that I understand the OP correctly:
The seating position is actually irrelevant as long, as you fulfil this rule: If you would enlarge the driver's helmet by 2in in every direction, that new virtual helmet must not stick out of the roll-cage-space (i.e. between the main-hoop braces, and the virtual line from the top of the main-hoop to the front-hoop).

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[flavorPacket]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Steve O:
I'm not going to lie, that rule has been posted since a few weeks after they put out the rule book.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Our chassis was done before that date.

In previous years, you could use the back of the frame or even the tire to create the line, not the base of the MRH bracing.

[Maverik]

The rule book definitely came out back in September, a few MONTHS prior to the December 3 date the new rule was posted. I remember because I had to print all of it out for my team. But anyway, it is definitely a new rule because of how they defined the 2" plane... not the roll plane, but as flavor stated the MRH bracing base point. I think the helmet can still stick through the main-hoop braces, just as long as it doesn't come within two inches of the plane defined by the top of the hoop and the brace attachment point.

[Steve Yao]

As Mav sort of pointed out. It is easy to fail this if you had previously considered your rear-bulkhead has "approved structure" even though your MRH braces ended well before it.

Any team that terminates the braces at their shoulder harness support, for instance, needs to examine this closely.

[Steve O]

I'm not sure if I am reading it correctly... why is the rear bulkhead not still an approved structure? It says back of mrh bracing OR approved structure. Either way our mrh bracing goes to our rear bulkhead so it is a non issue for us.

I think the back of mrh portion of it was added to clarify in case teams have a floating rear end and decided to use a portion of the structure bolted on to the
rear end to define the plane. I think it still allows you to use any reasonable structure that is properly supported for roll protection.


Steve

[Steve Yao]

I cannot find the original response I got back from Kathleen, but it was explained that for structure to become approved, it would require a structural equivilency submission showing that said structure was equal or better than MRH braces all the way back to the rear bulkhead.

The only default approved structures are those specified in the rules: Roll hoops, front bulkhead, FB supports, RH supports, side impact structures, amd shoulder harness bar. So these structures define the safety cell and nothing else unless you submit SEF.

[N.Tsuji]

I have noticed that 2008 Formula SAE Rules are revised now.
http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/rules/
Is there change summary of the "new" rules?

[Michael Royce]

I think you will find that the "revision" was a change to the cockpit templates that are proposed for 2009. It was posted just a few days after the original post, back last August or September.

[Tech Guy]

Have you guys seen the posting from a couple of days ago on the official FSAE web site that replaces the CDS Newsletters?

It appears that Mr. Royce is going to tell the Tech Inspectors to clamp down on where the head restraint is placed, namely make it meet the rules. And it also sounds as though a bunch more teams will be needing mirrors to meet the visibility rule!

The link is:
http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/