84 replies to this topic

[ChrisA]

The aluminum containment seats can be adjusted for the height of the ears.  Nice to set it so your eyes peek over the ears while your head's center of mass is still supported.

 

Haven't found a really comfortable aluminum seat yet though, haha.

 

I have a Racetech seat and its' head restraint arms are pretty long. That along with me being short makes the passenger mirror useless. It also make exiting the driver's window very difficult. It is a pretty comfortable seat and seems much safer than my last seat. 

 

Here you can see where I mounted a race mirror in order to get some idea what's next to me or soon will be.

Attached Files

•  Mirror callout.jpg   279.14KB   6 downloads

[Tom Hampton]

After having seen the car in person, there are two better angles that make the point:  Either side on from the outside, where you can see the gap that opened up between the lower door bar and the rocker panel, or from the drivers window showing a similar view. 

 

I'm sure it could be said better.  But here's mine. 

 

Letter #17042

 

Request is to eliminate the rule that limits the maximum number of attachment points. Currently the rule restriction is to a maximum of 8 attachment points. The recent wreck at SCCA Majors at TWS involving William Keeling and Lee Thomas demonstrates the need to build our cages with maximum structural integrity in mind.

In this wreck William Keekings car nearly penetrated into the drivers compartment between the gap in the lower door bar / rockerpanel space. Any addtional attachment points that limit this potential, and any other strengthening opportunities should be allowed.

No consideration should be given to trading real safety against any perceived potential performance advantage

 

From September Fasttrack:

 

SM 1. #17042 (Tom Hampton) Maximum Cage Attachment Points Rule Thank you for your concern regarding the incident at TWS. The current cage specifications permit sufficient reinforcement of the driver's door bars without the need for additional cage attachment points.

 

Based on a disregard for the nature of the wreck at TWS?

[Bench Racer]

After looking at the 2 photos posted on page 3, what could we do to allow less intrusion without extra attachment points?

 

No disrespect to the cage in the receiving car. Everything can be improved. It looked like the upper tube was a NASCAR tube with the lower tube traveling straight from rear hoop to front hoop. Using the same two tubes, add a second NASCAR tube slightly above the existing lower straight tube. Then attach maybe three diagonals from the lower NASCAR tube to the lower straight tube and attach three diagonals from the lower NASCAR tube to the existing upper NASCAR tube. Could also be completed to the drivers side and still have elbow room. Now the same intrusion force is divided through a beam through six attachment points, two more attachment points than the crashed roll cage.

 

Thoughts or other thoughts for improvement without additional attachment points.  

[Tom Hampton]

Sure, more steel can always be added, and with a reasonable design will improve the strength of the cage.  That is not what i call engineering, its just brute force.   The point was really that there is no reason for the attachment point rule.  It simply limits the design options for a competent structural engineer, for no reason other than obtusenes or history.  

[wheel]

I would bet that most cars have the thinnest allowable tubing in their door bars (and the rest of the cage, for that matter).  If you want more side protection, use .120 tubing and do three bent NASCAR bars attached to each other with vertical tubes.  Personally, I don't think cages should have an upper limit, (just a minimum) but that is just one person's opinion.