For comment:Input to BoD; CRB has spoken. While I respect the objective, I believe that the rule as proposed should be withdrawn and reformulated to provide an objective attenuation standard, rationally related to the relative mass and speed of the very different affected formula cars, and, as a result, susceptible to calculation of engineering equivalents which could permit development of alternative implementations which would obsolete fewer chasses and body molds.
Jay, Mike Q./Jim, Sidewinder Mike, Don C., Don H./Steve, or spokesmen, please email inputs to or call me at my office: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (314-259-2959). Jack -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Thoennes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:56 AM To: Walbran, John W. Subject: RE: Section 9.4.5.F Front Impact Attenuation Proposal for F500 This would apply to all cars homologated after 1986. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Thoennes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:08 AM To: Walbran, John W. Subject: RE: Section 9.4.5.F Front Impact Attenuation Proposal for F500 Jack, Under the proposed rule all Formula cars including F500s would be required to have front crush structures. The CRB feels this is appropriate based on the speed the 500s are now going along with the similarities they have with the other Formula car classes in terms of chassis construction. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: Walbran, John W. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 5:36 PM To: SCCA BOD Cc: Club Racing Board Subject: Section 9.4.5.F Front Impact Attenuation Proposal for F500 Board of Directors: I have continued to reflect on this proposal as it applies to F500s As I see the proposal, at least as it would apply to the F500s I know, it is not necessary. There is no crisis such as we had in 1988 when the Red Devils were designed without a crossbar between the top frame rails at the rear mounting points for the front A-arms: if you hit anything, the A-arm drove the rail in and broke your leg. When I hit the wall at Daytona the first weekend in May of that year, that happened: as I recollect it, the CRB directed a fix before the end of the month. In contrast, here, I think that--given the history of the earier 1988 wheelbase extension to protect our feet and its effectiveness (so long as one does not go light on the front bulkhead with which a car was homologated)--this proposal is aimed at providing an added measure of safety, an improvement over what has been shown to be good enough, again at least as applied to F500. In such circumstances, while I do not support the change, I can see an argument for its being implemented prospectively, that is, at least in the case of F500, for cars to be homologated after January 1, 2008. The way I read it, that is not, however, what the published proposal calls for. It calls for retrofitting all cars homologated since January 1, 1986. I believe that, given F500's history (wheelbase and roll bar changes twice obsoleting older cars) and F500's circumstance (a general need for expensive new bodywork to add crushboxes), this retroactivity would be ill-timed and draconian. Jack Walbran Member Number 118865 F500 #67 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walbran, John W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:07 PM Subject: FW: 4vi section 9.4.5.F_v1.DOC Board of Directors: Subject: Section 9.4.5.F Front Impact Attenuation Proposal for F500 I do not believe the current "crushbox" proposal is necessary or, as a result, acceptable for F500. The F500 wheelbase was extended in 1988 to assure a driver's feet are behind the front wheels. To the best of my knowledge, this change resolved our injury issues. For a vivid example, see the October 6, 2000 Runoffs video -- on which, three times, you will see me suffer a steering box failure and drive into the base of the bridge on driver's right at Mid Ohio's Turn One, and walk away uninjured as Dorsey Schroeder points out. I believe the change is not acceptable as a simply desirable measure, especially in its current rigid form, because -- again to the best of my knowledge -- it will require new body work for all F500s other than the Scorpion. (The Scorpion's nose was designed to accommodate a crushbox). This is a big, expensive deal and will adversely affect car counts. At a minimum, if the change is to be implemented in any form -- which I oppose, it should be modified to call for the defined options or their engineering equivalents -- say, for example, not less than 7.5 inches in length forward of the pedals. This is not special pleading, because, as many of you will know, I own Scorpions and the predecessor Mavericks (which can be retrofitted as Scorpions). If, however, one is to pursue any generally prophylactic measure, I strongly urge consideration of the HANS device. Look again at the slow motion video of my 2000 Runoffs incident and focus on what is important. Though many will object to the HANS price tag, it will not be more. Jack Walbran Member No. 118865 F500 #67 <<4vi section 9.4.5.F_v1.DOC>> Fron -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 11:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [F500] Rear Suspension Question does anyone need a rear end i have one out of an 86 red deviel it includes the jack shaft and cluthes Rory -----Original Message----- From: Richard L. Hensley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:05 pm Subject: Re: [F500] Rear Suspension Question Thanks, jest wondered what others were doing? ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>? To: <[email protected]>? Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 8:43 AM? Subject: Re: [F500] Rear Suspension Question? ? > keep it supported? > my vote anyway? >? > ----- Original Message ----? > From: Richard L.? > Hensley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>? > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007? > 10:26:54 PM? > Subject: Re: [F500] Rear Suspension Question? >? > That 3.5" is? > centerline of bearing to centerline of pulley.? >? > ----- Original Message -----? > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>? > To: <[email protected]>? > Sent: Sunday, August 26,? > 2007 9:02 PM? > Subject: Re: [F500] Rear Suspension Question? >? >? >> Are you saying? > that the drive sprocket is about 3.5 inches from the? >> nearest? >> bearing? > support if you take away the support? If so,A that is a pretty? >> long? >> way? > to go unsupported. There is really quite a bit of force through? >> there. I? >> have about an 1.5-2" unsupported, and that is about as far a distance as >> I? >>? > have seen used. It has survived fairly well, but I did just have a? >>? > jackshaft? >> bearing failure. The remainder of the shaft is well supported and? > has? >> minimal? >> distances unsupported.? >>? >> An F5 is something that can't? > really be overbuilt,? >> especially if used for autox.? >>? >> ----- Original? > Message ----? >> From: Richard L.? >> Hensley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>? >> To:? > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007? >> 4:18:49 PM? >> Subject: [F500]? > Rear Suspension Question? >>? >> I have a Red Devil about? >> 1984 to 1986 with a? > Kaw. The rear suspension has? >> been updated to a 4 link? >> with a panhard bar.? > In addition there is a belt? >> tensioner bar on the outside? >> right side, it? > has a 1" bearing on the jackshaft? >> and a 1-1/4" bearing on the? >> axle. The? > tensioner bar as configured also? >> absorbs bending loads on the jack? >> shaft.? > since the drive sheave is? >> cantilevered about 3-1/2" to the right of the? >>? > right jackshaft support bearing.? >> My question is "is the tensioner bar? >>? > necessary or can it be eliminated.? >> Calculations indicate the bending load on? >> the jackshaft is not excessive,? >> however start-up shock loads, such as in? >>? > autocross, are hard to estimate.? >> What's the current practice.? >>? >> Richard? > Hensley? ? ? ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. ________________________________ 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! ***
