F-5's are dangerous at any speed? Hmmmm, we may as well pull all the F-5's off the track until a material fatigue analysis study can be conducted.
To be safe, we would need to analyze every stress point of every the car in relation to the suspension and the improvements the new 3" puck would provide. Is there any real scientific analysis on that would prove the new puck size is the correct size to prevent the cracks? Maybe it needs to be a 4" puck, how about a 6"? If we are going to hang our hat on something like a thicker puck to make the cars "safer", then it needs to be proven that it will do the job. Anecdotal ideas don't make an argument. I guess I've been lucky. I've been racing for 5 years with 6-10 races a year in a 91 KBS MK 5. I always check for cracks in the frame as my post race inspection. Haven't found one yet. I know some models are more susceptible to frame stress cracks, but that would seem to me to be an engineering design issue, not a rules change issue. Anyway, you could always reinforce the weak connection point. Material fatigue-keeping motorsports supply houses in business for almost a hundred years! Mark S. Lindsey, AIA Principal Baskervill architecture + engineering + interior design 804 343 1010 P.O. Box 400 Ship to or visit fax 343 0909 Richmond, VA 101 S 15th St baskervill.com 23218 . 0400 Ste 200 . 23219 ask + listen + create <SNIP> > >On Oct 5, 2006, at 9:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > BOD, >I have just heard that this change was turned down even though there >were over 42 drivers in favor of this improvement. I have been running >F440/500's since 1982 and I have had multiple suspension failures at >all four corners over these many years where the supporting metal has >broken completely with one particular rear failure at speed that lifted >the rear of the car 4 feet in the air (I was looking straight down at >the road!). My heart, needless to say, stopped momentarily; to say >that this kind of failure at speed is a SAFETY issue and you DENY >IMPROVING the suspension just stuns and flabbergasts me. I was there >in 1983 when the rubber puck suspension rule was first written in as a >SAFETY item. Were any of you around then and remember this? Do you >also remember during the discussions for this rule that the puck >dimensions of 1" thick and 2" diameter were considered only a starting >point - to be reviewed periodically for the appropriateness only to be forgotten about ! > all these 20 years until now - we are human and do forget! I urge you >to immediately reconsider your vote, remember that this is a SAFETY >issue and vote your conscience to help the F500 community. And last, >do you want to risk going on record denying this safety improvement >when a suspension point metal failure at 125 mph seriously hurts or even kills a F500 driver? > >I await your response not your acknowledgement of receipt. > >Jim Murphy >3R93012 > > >Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and >security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from >across the web, free AOL Mail and more. > > >= [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of ________________________________ FormulaCar Magazine - A Proud Supporter of Formula 500 The Official Publication of Junior Formula Car Racing Subscribe Today! www.formulacarmag.com or 519-624-2003 _________________________________ _______________________________________________ F500 mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change options please visit: http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500 *** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list! ***
