Crash test for 2006 rules

[Rob.C]

hi, we have just been going through crash structure rules for the 2006 comps, one of the new rules is that crash attenuators must withstand 300kg at 7m/s withough peaking above 20g

that i understand, what i am confused about is how will they test this at competition??

all i can see is a destructive test! any ideas?

[Rob.C]

hi, we have just been going through crash structure rules for the 2006 comps, one of the new rules is that crash attenuators must withstand 300kg at 7m/s withough peaking above 20g

that i understand, what i am confused about is how will they test this at competition??

all i can see is a destructive test! any ideas?

[Kamil S]

Haha... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Announcer: " Would the University of Birmingham please give in their car to the technical staff... your car was randomly selected for crash testing in compliance with the rules. Thank you."

... oh the horror. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[mtg]

That's hilarious.

[Kevin Hayward]

How about a destructive test on an exact copy of the structure?

I think this sort of rule may take a while to sort out. However getting students to do that sort of testing and present results is a step in the right direction ... I think.

It would be good if the SAE could suggest a way to test for teams. There are quite a few standard testing techniques for auto components. Maybe the organisers could provide a document to give teams an idea of how to test.

That way you could "trust" the teams not to lie. I think most teams wouldn't stretch the truth ... too much.

Cheers,

Kev

OptimumG

[James Waltman]

Kevin got it. The rules don't say anything about testing it at competition. They say submit calculations and/or test data to prove your structure. And it must be submitted well before the competition.

This is the same system as the Safety Structure Equivalency Form. If they don't buy your report they will call you on it and make you submit further proof.

If you want some ideas for how to test the crush structure you can search around the forum. This has come up a few times before.

[Denny Trimble]

How about a rule - you must bring two crush zones to competition, and they will destructively test the lighter of the two on a standard rig. The other one, you have to run with. That would be fun!

[BrunoC]

Hi all,
For the crash test 2006 rules, we have decided to build a pendulum to test our side pod, who are impact attenuators, and also our nose. Before doing this test, we calculated the energy that need to be dissipated. And after that we decide how much material was needed. So to test those, we had to build a second nose and another side pod. Also, we are building another steering wheel to do some test on it. And all these test are in regulation with the FIA. You can go see the side pod, the nose and the steering wheel on your site.
http://www.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA6061T6

[BrunoC]

wrong link sorry
http://www.mec.etsmtl.ca/club/formule/

[Travis Garrison]

Bit of a random thread hijacking...but speaking of the new front impact rules, has anyone else noticed that the requirement of front hoop bracing extending to the plane of the driver's feet (typ the front bulkhead) sets up a situation in monocoques where a bolted in front roll hoop could be torn out and pushed back into the driver during a head on collision? Fun stuff http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Probably not as serious as it sounds initially, since you shouldn't get much crushing of the front bulkhead...but still, seems like there might need to be an exeption for monocoques.

[Chris Clarke]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bit of a random thread hijacking...but speaking of the new front impact rules, has anyone else noticed that the requirement of front hoop bracing extending to the plane of the driver's feet (typ the front bulkhead) sets up a situation in monocoques where a bolted in front roll hoop could be torn out and pushed back into the driver during a head on collision? Fun stuff Smile

Probably not as serious as it sounds initially, since you shouldn't get much crushing of the front bulkhead...but still, seems like there might need to be an exeption for monocoques. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually the rules only state that the front roll hoop braces "should" extend to the front bulkhead, not that they "must".

In the document that SAE released in the summer they talked about this a little.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "¢ Contrary to the announcement at the Awards Ceremony and in the earlier June posting, Rule 3.3.5.2.C will remain unchanged, and we will NOT mandate that the Front Roll Hoop Braces "must extend to the structure in front of the driver's feet."� Recent calculations indicate that it does not necessarily achieve what the Committee intends, and may be counterproductive. However, other rule changes to protect the driver's feet will be implemented. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They have added the "front bulkhead support structure" rules though, which must extend to the front bulkhead.