25 replies to this topic

[KW78]

As a car builder that rents several cars several times a year, I study the rules quite alot and field cars in SCCA and NASA.

 

The nasa cage rules seem like a stone copy of circa 2004 SCCA cage rules.  SCCA has evolved the cage rules and fixed some things that have popped up over time, and their newest 2014 ruleset reduces some problems that Spec Miata cars have.

 

Is NASA going to keep this parallel?

 

OR, if I have a SCCA logbook and annual tech, does that "bonified sanctioning  body" document trigger the same from NASA? (CCR 16.0 "Safety inspection" seems to indicate this)

 

Pertaining to Spec Miata, here are my main 2 issues, (although I have found a half dozen conflicts).

 

We lost a car at the 25 hour this year.  The physics of the crash were just brutal and there are things to learn from it.  The driver was helicoptered out and is expected to recover fully, but got damn lucky on a whole myriad of safety points.  As the car owner it really makes you think.  If any of the taller drivers on the team were in the accident I believe it would have been even more serious than it was, much more so.

 

Miatas just don't have enough head room, and is a constraint we all have to deal with.  The SCCA rules allow me to make a little more headroom in the cage.   Specifically, the main hoop diagonal bracing can either be in the plane of the rear braces, or only be required to go 50% across the main hoop.  NASA requires this brace to be in the main plane of the hoop, and be within 12" of the drivers side upper corner.  

 

This puts it in reach of impact with the drivers head much sooner than the other designs.  In fact with tall drivers, you are driving with your head touching this bar, or nearly so.  In the case of the miata, with such a short "box" as defined by the main hoop, the point of the full diagonal bracing gets outweighed by increased head room, IMO.  Especially in the average Spec Miata incident.  Slapping a wall or a tire barrier, or getting hit on the passenger side, in an accident that you beat the fender out and keep racing, your head still slaps that bar's padding.

 

The second main conflict (omission really in the NASA rules) is being allowed in the SCCA rule set to attach bracing for the seat mount system to both the floor and the cage on the drivers side of the centerline of the car, and forward of the main hoop, without it counting as cage attachment points.

 

In the thunderhill accident, the floor was ripped from the rocker box and the rocker box crushed in towards the tunnel, narrowing the drivers side tub and displacing the seat upwards and inwards.  I think the design the SCCA rules allow would give that a fighting chance of being a better situation in this accident. 

 

Although, in FIA rally rules you are required to have the lower seat bracing reach the other side of the cage, not just the tunnel.  Not sure how much stopping at the tunnel will add to keeping the drivers compartment from crushing, but clearly much less than if I braced past the tunnel to the other side, like ralley car cages we've built.

 

Interestingly, my customers reactions are to get full containment seats into the cars, which requires more head room, and most FIA seats don't allow a back brace - so the floor needs to be much stronger as well.   So, we are using the Ultrashield full containment seat in the first build, which allows for seat back bracing.

 

Back to the point of this post, I am building 3 cars in the off season using the 2014 SCCA cage rule set which have technicality conflicts with the NASA ruleset, will I have a problem getting NASA logbooks as well???

 

Thanks,

Kyle Watkins

Sector Purple Racing

Rocky Mountain Division SCCA and NASA

 

 

[davew]

I would like to see pix of the cage that allowed the rocker panel to fold inward.

 

Email them to me if you do not wish to post on a public forum

 

dave

[KW78]

I will post a single pic of the car here to reflect the scope of the accident, but otherwise I am making a point about future builds, and not wanting any conflict between the 2 organizations, especially in this class since they (SCCA and NASA) are intending on cross over customers.

 

I don't think the cage "allowed" the rocker to move, just that the rocker moved alot and the tunnel move a little and the difference resulted in crushing/distorting/displacing the drivers seat, as well as ripping the floor from the rockers.  The SCCA seat mount rules will reduce this I feel, so I am going that route.

 

Frankly, the rocker panels are 5 or 6 layers and the strength of the car, so when that is overcome I think any cage is just along for the ride.

 

I will have to figure out how to get a pic from my phone uploaded.

 

Kyle

[davew]

KW, I have never seen your cage design, so this is not directed at you.

 

Any cage that passes tech, will allow the driver to survive your typical race accident. Any decent cage will work in the big one. But when you get into the REALLY BIG ONE, the cage design may save your life.

 

I have produced a youtube video about the how and why of my cage design. you can find it here

 http://www.advanced-...a59c650b160585c

 Sorry, I don't know how to do the "click here" thing.

 

I explain that how the cage is designed and where tubes and joints are placed can make a big difference in how the cage reacts in a big hit. I am not an engineer, but I worked on enough tube frame Trans-Am cars that where designed by engineers (Roush, Riley, Weaver). Triangles, gussets, and having nothing in single shear can make big differences.

 

Safety first

 

Dave

[KW78]

2nd Attempt

 

Here you go Dave,

 

I think the cage did OK here, in fact I think it is a safety equipment success story that the driver will be OK.  But moving forward, one always likes to maximize improvement.  So again, I am using the SCCA ruleset to replace this car.  

 

Kyle

 

Attached Files

•  ResizedImage_1420668010828.jpg   343.66KB   61 downloads

[davew]

OUCH

 

I think that is an Autopower cage, but I could be wrong. Rear supports do not go into trunk, this allowed the trunk to colapse. Assuming it is an Autopower, they go to the shelf, rather than to the floor. This may have been contributing to the driver area being crushed. Watch my video for a better explanation. Pictures are worth a 1000 words, and  I talk better than I type.

 

Glad the driver will be ok. That is one of the hardest hits I have seen.

 

Dave

[KW78]

KW, I have never seen your cage design, so this is not directed at you.

 

All info from all sources is a good thing in making the best efforts for customers.

 

This car originally came from out of the area, so I did not build it from scratch.  It was updated as the rules evolved (for example 2 door bars) but actually has been around for a long time.   Several newer cages I have done I much prefer over this design, but this one was OK.   I raced this car at the runoffs last time I went, for example. 

 

Kyle

 

Ok - back to work, out of internet time....  

[KW78]

OK one more quickie... 

 

It was originally autopower.  One of the updates was to put rear bars to the floor in the trunk and not the shelf.  Others were making it weld in, and moving the down tubes off the floor to not break a leg, onto the rocker box, and added door bars. 

 

The amazing thing here is, this car was hit from the rear, not the side.    He was stalled on course and hit in the rear by a Mazda6 at speed that didn't see him.

 

Yes the hardest hit I have ever witnessed, including the corvette at T3 RA awhile back.  It was like the Corvette hit at mid-o runoffs of Natha's in like '03,.  The boom alarmed the whole paddock at Thunderhill.  I have never had a driver flown away before, but that is a whole other big topic. 

 

Kyle

[Ron Alan]

Kyle,

Glad to hear your driver will be fine. Seeing this car first hand was really a jaw dropping experience. I couldn't believe people said the driver walked out...or was helped out and standing(I apologize if this is not accurate). I applaud your effort to try and get what seems to be a few inconsistencies on the same page. All for improved safety and ideas!

[Johnny D]

So IDK, when, what, where, but...

 

Note to self, don't stall on track, at night, with your light off, right ??

Get off.

Just saying, it hurts otherwise.

 

Also NASA is a real good "cut and paster" of SCCA rules, so I'd just point out what's not there, there should be some adjustments, IMO

J~

[mhiggins10]

OUCH

 

Yup.  Glad to hear the driver is going to be OK!

[Speedycrw]

NASA had addressed the cage diagonal issue in a previous rule set, the current set on the site is definitely not up to date. 

[MPR22]

Never seen a miata fold up like that except when they hit trees and big rigs, what a freaking impact.

[Derrick Ambrose]

Never seen a miata fold up like that except when they hit trees and big rigs, what a freaking impact.

The miata was hit with a 3300lb sedan which I was doing tech support/crewing for so it might have well been a tree.

 

Derrick

[Ron Alan]

The miata was hit with a 3300lb sedan which I was doing tech support/crewing for so it might have well been a tree.

 

Derrick

The one scary downside to being a Miata or any other small/light car at the 25hr

[mhiggins10]

The miata was hit with a 3300lb sedan which I was doing tech support/crewing for so it might have well been a tree.

 

Derrick

Do you have any more info/details on the accident?  Hope the other driver was wearing a HANS and is OK!

[john mueller]

NASA had addressed the cage diagonal issue in a previous rule set, the current set on the site is definitely not up to date. 

 

There's some weird back-dating thing happing on the NASA site where overtime we upload the new set of rules it reverts back.  It will be received soon.

[Ron Alan]

Miata was dead on track halfway down the back straight on the right side(night). The Mazda 6 did not see him(I assume another car at speed in front of the mazda 6 was involved) My guess is a least 80mph impact. Right front of Mazda 6 was torn off.

[Derrick Ambrose]

Our driver was following another car, the car in front swerved and our driver did not have enough time to dodge him.  Our driver was wearing HANs and was a little bit sore but that was it.  As Ron mentioned the right front of the Mazda 6 was missing.  We did get lucky and it was not a direct hit, the right frame rail and engine were not part of the impact on the 6 or I fear this would have been worse for everyone.

 

-Derrick
 

[Chad Martin]

The NASA series rules for SM and PT both allow for additional cage attachment points from the door bars to the rocker panel structural member.    The NASA CCR allows and encourages the seat mount be built out of structural steel which is welded to the cage.  I'd be surprised if ANY inspector gave you grief if it also tied into the car in other ways (the seat mounting steel).  It does not strictly say that you can do both at the same time but it is directly implied that you can in the seat mounting.  The seat mounting rule is very open ended, simply encouraging folks to ensure the seat is secured properly.

 

The SM series rules allow for the SCCA cage dimension where the diagonal bar goes at least 50% (not all the way to within 12" like the CCR states).  Series rules always supercede the CCR.  I will work with Jerry to get the CCR changed to allow for this 50% rule at least for smaller cars like Lotus Miatas etc stated in the CCR so in the situation where lets say you are running PT you would get grief from a illogical inspector, is avoided.