Open wheelers without rollcages are dinosaurs

Super Modifieds use them.
Sprint cars use them.
NASCAR modifieds use them.
So what is going through the heads of the people in F1 and Indy car?

Forgive me Franklin - I don't normally rise immediately to a statement. I normally consider an informed reply discussing the merits of any suggestions or ideas that are new or unusual to me.

On this occasion I have to say that I believe that if you continue to approach the wrong end of the horse, you're bound to get kicked. ;)

The three classes you describe...

Super Modifieds use them.
Sprint cars use them.
NASCAR modifieds use them

...are hardly what I would describe as 'cutting edge', and hence are somewhat closer on the automotive evolutionary scale to the dinosaurs you describe than any modern monocoque chassis used in Formula 1, Indy/Cart, Barber Dodge, Formula First, my daughters go-kart....

You need a technology re-evaluation. I love a rollcage equipped car. Both my street cars have them. Not for the safety advantage - although important - but more for the enhancement in chassis performance. But these are heavy sedans. Not lightweight, spaceage-tech single seaters.

You can't just mix 'n' match technology 'cos they're the best bits of the formulae you follow, and expect to use them to advantage in other forms of motorsport.

I would have to say that in terms of tech level, sprint cars are not even close to F1 circa 1966.

A rollcage in a modern composite Formula car would be like custard and chips.

(which isn't bad by the way, just avoid adding cucumber and after shave) ;)

Franklin,
Are you having a bad hair week or are you overdoing the Prozac.

My tin top needs a rollcage because the fundamental strength of the chassis is poor as it was designed to absorb impacts once. I have been testing this theory rather too regularly recently!

All top line single seaters have astounding technology in the structural strength and crash absorbtion areas.
The only have a 'roll-over' bar for barrel roll protection and for craning the car off the circuit! I think there is a regulation which says this must be metal, though it could be carbon.

If it wasn't for the cost I'm sure that Drag racers would use this technology too.
F1 cars using current regs are made to about 440kg 970lb. inlduing engine and gearbox. I am sure a Top Fueler or Funny car could be made to much lighter than at present even given that the engines, clutches, boxes etc have to heavier to handle the launch loads.
Mind you a lighter car could get away with a smaller engine...

Franklin, how much does a Top Fueler/Funny car weigh?

IanC

Except those composite miracle cars don't have sh!t when it comes to anything that will keep a wall off a driver's head, or keep a wheel assembly out of a driver's face, or keep another car off a driver's head.

Franklin, go tell it to the Petty family. See what they have to say...

If you want to play that game we could ask the Senna family that same question.

I didn't realize we were playing games, Franklin.

But it does kind of make your continual statements about 300mph F1 this and that a little bad taste, though.

You mention the desire to see other people go much, MUCH faster than they currently do, on the premise that it'll be OK as long as they weld a dirty great rollhoop over their heads.

IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT ABSOLUTE SPEED - THERE ARE OTHER MEANS OF COMPETITION.

Franklin, without wanting to be rude, Am I right in thinking that you have every 'Crash', 'Chaos' and 'When Race Cars Go Bad' video series ever produced?
You seem to have a morbid fascination with speed, and the likely effects of an unprotected crash.

Explain your motives, so that I might understand your statements.

From what I've understood so far, you want every formulae in the world to run similar 3000lb, spaceframe machinery, in races that consist of one lap on a 3-mile straight. Both ways.

Isn't it possible that different forms of motorsport can co-exist, with little effect on each other?

"From what I've understood so far, you want every formulae in the world to run similar 3000lb, spaceframe machinery, in races that consist of one lap on a 3-mile straight. Both ways."

No, Sparky, what you have not understood is some forms of racing have been regulated into homogenized pasteurized cookie-cutter clones with all the adventure legislated out of them.

And then there are some forms of racing that have not.

So why are you suggesting changing F1 to run along the same lines as an existing class of racing?

I agree that Formula 1, had the regulations not been changed to increase safety, would be one of the fastest shows on earth. But it would also be a blood sport.

I asked you:

Explain your motives, so that I might understand your statements.

Isn't it possible that different forms of motorsport can co-exist, with little effect on each other?

Your answer would be...?

Good luck Sparky, i've tried asking ol Franklin questions before, but since he is far superior to us scum, you will never get a response. Are you a betting man sparky?:)

"...composite miracle cars don't have sh!t when it comes to anything that will keep a wall off...."


"sh!t"
-Franklin, for a master of the english language, couldn't there be a better word to use in your vast and knowledge filled brain??

Franklin, heres a tip:
Get out of the house for a while....please??

"You need a technology re-evaluation. I love a rollcage equipped car. Both my street cars have them. Not for the safety advantage - although important - but more for the enhancement in chassis performance. But these are heavy sedans. Not lightweight, spaceage-tech single seaters."

People who think the primary function of a rollcage is chassis stiffness simply have no comprehension of why rollcages were developed. Or else in their desperation to defend the stupidity of multi-million dollar cars with no rollcages seize upon any goofy reason that comes to mind.

Originally posted by Franklin
"You need a technology re-evaluation. I love a rollcage equipped car. Both my street cars have them. Not for the safety advantage - although important - but more for the enhancement in chassis performance. But these are heavy sedans. Not lightweight, spaceage-tech single seaters."

<<<Point 1: Have you thought why GM doesn't equip roadcars with cages in the first place? I have several friends and acquaintances that also use them in their roadcars, 'cos tehy say they need them for track days. However if part of your unprotected anatomy, especially your head, hits the rollcage even a low speeds you have a high probability of dying. Look at your own car and check out the padding around the pillars and roof where your head might hit in an accident. It doesn't look much but it works.
Rollbar padding does help but its primarily design to stop minor helmet damage in normal day to day knocks.
>>>>

You continued....
People who think the primary function of a rollcage is chassis stiffness simply have no comprehension of why rollcages were developed. Or else in their desperation to defend the stupidity of multi-million dollar cars with no rollcages seize upon any goofy reason that comes to mind.
I think I've lost your thread here..but....<g>
We use rollcages 'cos either we're told too, or we are well aware of our own limitations and race 1900lb cars on the track with 3200lb GM tanks (sorry Camaro's).
But having decided to increase the car's weight by 300lb, anyone with complete comprehension of rollcages makes it work for its living by picking up the major suspension and chassis loads.....which is why my RX7 have a bespoke multipoint cage fully welded in to the car.

However, if I had a choice between having a 150mph crash in my tin top or in an F1 car (or even IRL/CART) I would wish to be in the latter...apart from the thrill of destroying 3/4 mill dollars of toy...I would have a much better chance of surviving.

I don't understand why you have such a beef about F1/CART etc. These guys don't use composite technology, or spend tens of millions because they can, but because they must to win.

On another point you are also more than likely right that technologies used today were invented years ago, and from all around the globe. There is no 'invented here only' attitude in top flight motor racing.
Most suspension designs where invented in the 1900s. A multi-differential axle setup was designed in the 30s for tanks, which thanks to advanced electro-hydraulics has been tried in both Rally cars and F1 (Benetton allegedly).
Da Vinci invented the bicycle but he would have been astounded by the Chris Boardman (Lotus Eng) racing machine.
He also invented the helicopter but this has no bearing on the Huey and Apache.


IanC

The use of composite chassis versus tube space frame chassis is a problem more of packaging than any safety measure. It would be impossible to build a tubular space frame chassis to meet the current rules governing CART, F1 and the IRL and have the same abilities as a composite chassis:

1. Torsional rigidity. The composite chassis is used because it can generate much higher resistance to torsional stress than the tubular chassis. This is why modern jet fighters and competition aircraft are made from materials as well. Engines can also be employed as chassis stiffeners.

2. Light weight. The composite chassis is unmatched in strength versus weight ratios. A CART machine weighs in at a modest 1500 pounds versus the NASCAR machinery at 3550 pounds with similar wheelbases. While the two chassis are designed for radically different rules and series, the tubular chassis must be overbuilt to withstand impact loads that the lighter composite chassis absorbs.

3. Energy absorption crush zones. The concepts employed behind tubular chassis design are to create a safety cell from the chassis that will deform slightly to heavy impacts. This results in higher g-force loading placed upon the driver than the softer, more absorbent composite chassis that is designed to be frangible and carry away portions of the energy as well as be crushed and absorb large quantities of kinetic force. By creating an indestructible cage of steel around the driver, NASCAR drivers are forced to absorb large portions of the force within their bodies. This is why you see drivers emerge unscathed from violent flipping crashes at Daytona and then you see drivers killed in low speed impacts. The force of the impact is being directly transmitted to the driver. By virtue of the crush zones built into the nose section, side pods, and gear boxes of composite chassised open wheelers, the driver is spared a portion of the force and it is absorbed by the shattering of the outer portions of the chassis. The original thinking behind oval roadsters of the 50s and 60s was to create a cage that could withstand the impact of a crash and not be totally destroyed. The mortality rate of drivers was terrible because they absorbed the energy of the crash instead of the car.

4. Chassis repeatability. The materials used in the construction of composite chassis lend themselves to being able to create chassis with near identical characteristics. The tubular chassis does not provide this because of the material structural strengths varying and the stresses placed upon it by the welding process. Internal stresses on SAE 4140 and SAE 4130 after welding are very high and require religious magnafluxing and spectro-analysis to check for fatigue cracks and heat induced stress from the welding process. The tubular chassis is prone to warping or "tweaking" as it cools and the steel tubes change shape slightly. This must be worked around when building chassis and the suspension must accomodate the variances. The relatively long travel suspensions of NASCAR racers allow for this variance while the shorter suspensioned formula cars cannot accomodate it.

There will always be freak instances where a formula driver's body is subjected to unendurable stress or impact. Such cases are Greg Moore, Ayrton Senna, and Gonzalo Rodriguez. But for each of them there is a Paul Tracy, Nigel Mansell, Olivier Panis, Greg Ray and a host of others that have survived massive impacts with immovable barriers without life threatening injuries. The same goes with NASCAR drivers. The composite chassis and tubular space frame each do the jobs they were designed for.
[Edited by KC on 20th June 2000]

That's pretty much all true, KC, except there's nothing about sandwich composite monocoques that precludes attaching a full rollcage to them.

Right now I have sitting in my garage one of the few amateur-built sandwich composite monocoque racecars in the whole wide world. It's got a full rollcage.

Mel Kenyon was the first to adapt the modern roll cage, as seen on winged and non-winged sprint cars today, for Indy. He tried for three years to improve the aerodynamic package to accomodate the extra drag created by the overhead tubing to no avail. The extra drag made the car non-competitive. The modern IRL/CART/F1 car remains extremely safe as far as racing goes. Increases in cockpit side heights as well as improved helmet design and the yet to be mandatory HANS device are all working toward increasing driver safety without adding additional structures to the car.

"People who think the primary function of a rollcage is chassis stiffness simply have no comprehension of why rollcages were developed. Or else in their desperation to defend the stupidity of multi-million dollar cars with no rollcages seize upon any goofy reason that comes to mind."

-I think I'll jump in and say this before Sparky gets a chance:
Franklin: you are a goose!!!!;) Please read what Sparky typed again...seriously....AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGG!!!!

Ps. Sparky: Notice he chose not to answer your questions? how unusual for Franklin...

Thanks Crash.

He will answer. Eventually http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

Just for a nano-second, I wondered if I should build a composite composite sandwich monocoque-monocoque sandwich composite monocoque sandwich-construction Mk1 Escort. But with all that material in it, it would probably fall over.

But then I thought, It probably wouldn't go round corners anymore. And anyway, doing 300 mph in that thing, with those brakes?!

I think I'll keep my roll cage though. I'll take Franklin's advice, disconnect the cage from the chassis, so y'know, it's all floppy like, ... But I'll need to keep it to hang my Magic Tree from, see!? ;)


I can understand why you guys were keen to liberate the Indy forum, but here?

What's wrong with 'All Other Clarses'? ;)

Hehehe...good one Sparky!:)

I did spell 'Clarses' correctly, didn't I? ;)

I see nothing wrong with your vocabulary or spelling, old chap. Looks fine to me...

Crash Test has done a few too many crash tests. Whenever he gets an answer that's not the one he wanted he suddenly develops amnesia.

Dah....who are you?

No no, i don't think you understand.....

Dah.....

You see i think what Sparky was getting at was that a roll cage was to stiffen up his poor little escort. Now Sparky is not the type of person to go around having high speed crashes and roll overs, right Sparky?:) So i don't think it is right for you to come out and say that "simply have no comprehension of why rollcages were developed". If Sparky's Escort was a straight 600mph rocket sled, of course a massive roll cage would be a safety feature.

Dah....

But an escort isn't a rocket car (or is it?;)) and the roll cage is there to stiffen up the thing. Right?

OH well Franklin, why don't you asnwer Sparky's questions? I dare ya:)

Franklin,

Why not take a trip to Yahoo chat (yahoo.com)...look up the room "car chat"...spend some time in there. I think you will find it to your liking.

Thanks Crash!

I couldn't have put it better myself...

... I tried, mind you!

I've disconnected the cage and now all four wheels rub against each other. (;))

Cheers

Steve.

(It is a floppy rocket by the way! http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/images/icons/icon44.gif )

Just like to thank KC for the eloquent posting above, which is an excellent synopsis of the current state of play.

Pity it was wasted on Franklin though!
Having built a composite car so that it will absorb the impact energy it would be natural to want to put 44mm steel tubes into so it can't. Pity McLaren et al don't think like that!

IanC

Energy is absorbed by crushing and deformation of structure. The part of the car you DON'T want subjected to crushing and deformation is the cockpit.

Originally posted by Franklin
Energy is absorbed by crushing and deformation of structure. The part of the car you DON'T want subjected to crushing and deformation is the cockpit.

I think you will find that is EXACTLY why the world's best engineers have designed composite structures. As an engineer of some standing you will no doubt agree that a composite structure is inherently stronger than a tubed structure.

Ignore me if you wish but at the beginning of this thread Im sure I heard Sparky (the first man to criticise franklin) say that his daughter had a monocoque go-kart. Forgive me if this is true but I have never heard of such rubbish, if it was monocoque it must be one of the most technologically advanced gokarts around and surely must have cost at least 10 times the amount of a normal one.

Oh Please, Mackmot... I was havin' a larf! :)

...are hardly what I would describe as 'cutting edge', and hence are somewhat closer on the automotive evolutionary scale to the dinosaurs you describe than any modern monocoque chassis used in Formula 1, Indy/Cart, Barber Dodge, Formula First, my daughters go-kart....

When I typed that I simply meant every other kind of racing not listed by Franklin. Yes, I was the first to 'criticise' Franklin (or at least his post, remember!) but he had just called every type of racing other than the four he listed as 'dinosaurs'.

You are quite correct, my daughters go-kart is indeed of tubular construction. I contemplated a monocoque MDF design, but as it would unfortunately be used frequently in the Sparky's Back Yard Grand Prix, (which as every true racefan knows is held in the wettest conditions possible) it was universally agreed by the design team that it was likely to swell and rub on the wheels. Until thay start making wardrobes from carbon fibre sheet, material choice is limited.

And that was a joke too.