F500 mods

[77fmod]

Hey,
We have a couple at least of the 500 guys completely removing the bodywork and bars at the sides of the cockpit down to the sidepods.. I wonder if this would be legal for a road racer. Of course, if it is not legal for a road racing car it would not be legal for a SOLO one. At least that is my understanding... It is a big issue as it opens up the car for more violent arm action..
Any opinions?

Thanks,

Johnny B.

[DanRemmers]

I'm not sure about that. Those mods are not legal for a road racer, but we can do lots of things that are not legal for a road racing vee.

Were they trying to reduce weight?

[Lynn]

No, they are not trying to reduce weight. They are creating more arm and shoulder room need for autocrossing but not needed for road racing.

Since they are supposed to be GCR legal cars, the modifications don't appear to be legal to me.

[77fmod]

True. We can do lots of things that road racers can't but those things are all written in the rules.

The 500 GCR states that they can do just about anything with the frame as long as it is deemed safe.... My point is that what they are doing would not be deemed safe within the road race rules and therefore they are out of compliance with the GCR....

It's a BFD! In the words of our VP man....

I really hope this issue can get clarified before nationals.. Anyone want to suggest how that can be done?

Another voice told me that those mods were done by a BIG SCCA guy and they should be correct. Could someone tell me just how so, before I start cutting my ride up?

Cheers,

Johnny B.

[vreihen]

Another voice told me that those mods were done by a BIG SCCA guy and they should be correct.

The first thing to pop into my head when I read the above is this post from the F500 list from 2006:

http://www.mail-archive.com/f500@f500.org/msg02115.html

"Most of our time was spent writing the SV part of the rules as we just said that the F440/500's had to be GCR legal. Later, we found out that there was a loophole in that the lighter Solo legal roll bar and chassis stucture could also be used - examples of this are the Dave Phaneuf and Art Trier cars."

Paging Mr. Trier.....

[77fmod]

Well, that certainly is enlightening! Is the MAC going to look at this? But back to my original question... Is removing the sides of the cockpit legal? Do we need to write the SEB for clarification on GCR legal?

JB

[vreihen]

From page 224 of the 2010 Solo rules:

2. F5 cars manufactured prior to January 1, 1990 need not comply
with crushable structures as defined in Section E.7 of the current
GCR/FCS.

8. F440 & F500 cars in FM are not required in Solo to have the sidepods
now mandated by Club Racing if they were manufactured
prior to 1984 in which that requirement was added to the GCR.
Sidepods may not be removed from a car which was originally
manufactured with them. The measurements for the height, the
maximum width (bodywork), and the distance from the tires of
sidepods as specified in the GCR, Bodywork E.9 2nd paragraph,
shall have an allowance from the GCR of +/- one inch. It is the
intent of this allowance to maintain the ability of the sidepod(s) to
continue to hold such items as fuel tanks, battery, and radiator(s),
but not to allow sidepods to be used for ground effects to achieve
aerodynamic downforce on the vehicle.

From page 130, second paragraph:

Modified Category cars are divided into classes based on potential Solo
performance. They need not be licensed for or capable of street use.
The Solo Rules shall take preference over the Club Racing GCR (General
Competition Rules) concerning safety requirements for vehicles in
this Category.

This must have been the loophole that the F500 guys were referring to above, I'm guessing because the Solo rollbar specs in Appendix C are less restrictive than the GCR equivalent.

As for getting a clarification, I guess there's three options. One is to get an opinion from the technical person in Topeka. The second one would be to ask SEB, who will probably send it to MAC, and there probably won't be an answer before Nationals. The third option is to post the bond against one of those cars at a tour/divisional event, and seeing what a protest committee and/or appeals court thinks. Personally, I'm hoping for the 4th option...that Mr. Trier stops by this forum and tells us specifically what rules/loopholes they are using to remove cockpit structure. I'm curious of the same loophole can be applied to my Vee, since I substantially altered my frame for elbow/wing room and have been voluntarily running in A-Mod because I don't consider the car legal for F-Mod because of this.....

[vreihen]

Here's another two pieces, from page 133:

4. The roll bar structure must meet the requirements of either Appendix
C or Club Racing GCR 9.4 required by class rules. Roll cages
are strongly recommended.
“Specials” are required to have the roll bar extend at least two
inches above the driver’s helmet in the normal seated position
and a head restraint keeping the driver’s head from going under or
behind the roll bar. It is strongly recommended that all cars adhere
to this specification.

7. Club Racing GCR specific items and/or equipment not required in
Modified Category are as follows:

1) Fuel cells
2) Windscreens, side mirrors and tail/stop lights
3) Headlight covers, lenses, and bulbs
4) Log books
5) Fire retardant fire driver’s suits
6) Homologation
7) Fuel test ports
Production based dune buggies need not meet door requirements
9) Running lights
10) The 180 degree vision rule is recommended
11) Deformable and protective structures as defined by the FA rules
12) On board fire systems
13) Reverse gear in B Modified vehicles
14) A front impact attenuation device (GCR 9.4.5.G) is not required
in Solo Modified Category vehicles.
15) Driver restraint system aging requirements (GCR 9.3.18.G)
do not apply.
NOTE: If any conflict exists between the Club Racing GCR and
the Solo Rules, the Solo Rules shall take precedence.

Item #11 specifically states that it only applies to FA rules, but they are allowing several items of crash protection to be omitted.....

[Lynn]

The cars we are talking about have the side pods and most of the impact protection. They are cutting out the body work.

[ external image ]

[77fmod]

Okay guys,
Here's an update.. The pic that you posted is not the way the car looks now! It now has the diagonal side bar removed and so does Bleumenthal's car.

Even with all the verbage that was posted, I still do not see a loophole.. Maybe I'm just stubborn. There is nothing expressly stated in the rules allowing them to remove the cockpit side bars from a GCR legal chassis. I do not believe that the SCCA would want to have another car enter the cockpit and hit the driver in a roadrace car.
Having said that, I have been asking about our rules for the cockpit and it seems that we could remove the side bars as they are not defined in the GCR. However the body would have to stay in place as it has to be 25" at the firewall..

This is an interesting thread so please continue to add comments..

Thanks,

Johnny B.

[DanRemmers]

It seems to me that removing the side bars from the car in that picture would severely reduce chassis stiffness, and thereby compromise handling. I certainly wouldn't want to hit any solid barrier in a car like that.

[77fmod]

Well, I understand that this particular car put in another bar running horizontally but at about the side pod level.. I believe the other one removed that bar but still has two running along each side down low..

I also would think that the modification would decrease there torsional ridgidity.

JB

[Lynn]

Johnny, that picture was taken at the Blytheville NT two weeks ago. Has the car been modified since then?

[vreihen]

The cars we are talking about have the side pods and most of the impact protection. They are cutting out the body work.

[ external image ]

I actually just had to take a protractor to this picture, to ensure that the rollbar support braces were "at least 30 degrees from vertical" and attached to the top 1/3 of the roll hoop. It appears to *just* be squeaking by this Appendix C requirement.....

[vreihen]

Also, I can't see the width, but those forward rollbar braces appear to need padding per the rules. Not for this particular co-driver, but for the other driver whose head needs to be within 6" of the roll hoop.....

[qreshadow]

OK, since Arthur asked for my input, here goes and I'll try to remember all issues mentioned :--).

First and foremost since I am no longer Chair of the MAC or sit on that committee, I can not give an "official" answer. However, that being said, I did write most of the rules that you are referring to so I do have some expertise on these issues :--).

Let's first state a few things and then build on them.

In so many words, the GCR says that the chassis and all mechanical pieces forward of the roll bar (not wheels or suspension) must be covered by bodywork but the chassis can be of any design that has been homologated. However, the SIR does not require homologation papers, so that eliminates the usage of the GCR to validate chassis design as legal or illegal in Solo. Any alteration of an old race chassis is therefore legal as long as it doesn't violate SIR rules or be deemed "unsafe" by Tech. I think any chassis changes would have to be severe for that to happen and without specific information on a chassis member or a design, I couldn't give an opinion on that.

I do not see where there is any mention of bodywork height in the GCR or SIR for an F440/500, so this 25 inch statement must refer to Solo Vees, although I haven't checked

The "loophole" mentioned in the quote of a gentlemen who I will not comment about , is not a "loophole" at all. Appendix "C" has been around from the beginning of the Solo program. The GCR specifically mentions how a roll structure is structured/made and the dimensions of the tubing that is required. These rules are for racing where loads and potential safety hazards are addressed by these requirements. They are unnecessary in Solo and that is why it is "either or", the SIR Appendix "C" or the GCR. That's not a loophole by my interpretation . I should also point out that if it was only the GCR specs we needed to follow, then most, if not all Solo Vees, would be illegal too. Be careful what you ask for or how you stir the pot .

In the picture, I see the uncovered diagonal bracing as part of the roll hoop structure and not necessarily part of the chassis. That may be argumentative to some but that is my opinion. SIR rules allow for either front bracing or rear bracing of the roll hoop structure. That diagonal piece could be cut out and replaced by rear facing bracing to eliminate any discussion, so why even bother with the question? I think you guys have more things to address then that .

If I've missed something, ask away .

[vreihen]

In so many words, the GCR says that the chassis and all mechanical pieces forward of the roll bar (not wheels or suspension) must be covered by bodywork but the chassis can be of any design that has been homologated. However, the SIR does not require homologation papers, so that eliminates the usage of the GCR to validate chassis design as legal or illegal in Solo.

But does this allow for the removal/cutting of bodywork to leave an exposed frame member, which (without looking at the GCR's definition of "chassis") does not appear to be permitted?

In the picture, I see the uncovered diagonal bracing as part of the roll hoop structure and not necessarily part of the chassis. That may be argumentative to some but that is my opinion.

My interpretation is that the bars coming down at a 30 degree angle with the kill switch attached are the required rollbar supports per Appendix C, but the ones under the driver's elbows are a structural part of the chassis. They don't attach to the top 1/3 of the roll hoop, therefore they are *not* rollbar braces per that Appendix C requirement. Thus, they need to be covered by bodywork per GCR...if that rule applies in Solo. Q.E.D. (Can you picture how dangerous I'd be on a protest committee!)

If that lower brace were to be cut out (which may have been what happened after Blytheville if I understand what prompted Johnny's initial inquiry), then the car would be legal with the bodywork as modified. Of course, it would have the torsional rigidity of linguini, which I'm sure can be dealt with thanks to the additional wingspan to yank the steering wheel.....

[vreihen]

If I've missed something, ask away .

How about the neccessity of rollbar padding on the pictured car?????

[qreshadow]

Hi Arthur,

How's the weather up there?

Let's answer the easy one first: yes, roll bar padding would be necessary anywhere a helmet could touch the roll bar structure.

Cutting of the bodywork: Since the GCR says that the chassis needs to be covered by bodywork, you have to make a decision on, if in this case, both downward bars (both sides) are chassis members. If it is determined that it is part of the chassis, well then it must be covered. Of course, then you have to determine if bracing is part of the roll structure or the chassis. I didn't write that part of the GCR so I have no idea what their intent was. I'd have to research that but i don't feel that bracing needs to be covered. I should also point out that with the older cars, any forward roll hoop bracing was, at least, partially exposed and not covered by bodywork. Only when you got to the "laydown" cars (post '92-3) did the bodywork cover everything.

I can't make a determination either way because I can't see if both bars are connected or if there is a chassis member running parallel to the ground behind the top portion of the bodywork (side pod) and connecting the rear and front roll hoop. If there is a chassis member connecting the front and rear hoops at the top of the side pod, then an argument can be made that these bars are roll bar bracing and not chassis members.

So, only by a closer viewing of the car, can a determination be made. Of course, that could be a bone of contention no matter which way a decision is made . However, from my experience with older chassis, both diagonal bars could very well be intended by the manufacturer to be roll bar bracing. But again, all depends on what's behind the side pod .

Again, I think this adventure is a waste of good time. Whether illegal or not, it's not a big thing IMO unless you're into nitpicking because in Solo, if one was to remove both diagonal bars in the picture and move such "bracing" rearward behind the rear hoop, the question becomes mute. I think folks need to take a deep breath and worry about more important things. But that's just my opinion, ....what do I know ? .

[vreihen]

Hi Arthur,

How's the weather up there?

Typical late spring. Do you remember what it is like to have seasons? OK, other than hurricane, brush fire, and tourist seasons.

Let's answer the easy one first: yes, roll bar padding would be necessary anywhere a helmet could touch the roll bar structure.

So this car is probably illegal in one regard...in a don't remove that tag from your mattress sense.

I think folks need to take a deep breath and worry about more important things. But that's just my opinion, ....what do I know ? .

What could be more important? I've already got my lobbyists deployed at the Nebraska legislature, and they have reported back that we are very close to having enough votes to pass my proposed state-wide ban on the operation of two-cycle engines in the month of September. Seriously though, I probably shouldn't joke around about that, since I may be tapping Arctic Cat for my next power plant if I can't get the Vee to run again.....

[qreshadow]

Right back at ya

"Do you remember what it is like to have seasons? "

I think so but then again being my age, sometimes I can't remember if yesterday happened . But I don't live in a state anymore that is $9+ billion in the hole . NY is already known as the land of taxes, what do you think you can look forward to in the future? More taxes . If I were you, I'd bail if at all possible as I did 7 years ago . I may be down here waiting to die but at least my heirs will be able to afford the funeral .

"So this car is probably illegal in one regard...in a don't remove that tag from your mattress sense."

Yes, but who is really at fault here? The owner didn't put the required padding on the rol bar OR the braces but Tech approved that car as meeting all Solo requirements for entry. I luv Tech folks who can't spot the simple things .

"What could be more important?"

How 'bout the weather in Nebraska around, let's see, ... September .

[vreihen]

But I don't live in a state anymore that is $9+ billion in the hole . NY is already known as the land of taxes, what do you think you can look forward to in the future? More taxes . If I were you, I'd bail if at all possible as I did 7 years ago . I may be down here waiting to die but at least my heirs will be able to afford the funeral .

...because there's a glut of funeral homes down there!

At our Nassau Coliseum event last month, we had two NY State Assemblyman (one democrat and one republican) show up as invited guests. We're trying to get bi-partisan support to use the beach parking lots in the spring/fall, and needed to show them what autox is all about. They were both very willing to talk openly about why the state budget is gridlocked, and quick to point out that they haven't been paid since 4/1 and don't qualify for unemployment themselves. I did have the last laugh, saying that I want to pay to rent a lot at Jones Beach and I'm the only person in NY that Albany *won't* take money from!

Yes, but who is really at fault here? The owner didn't put the required padding on the rol bar OR the braces but Tech approved that car as meeting all Solo requirements for entry. I luv Tech folks who can't spot the simple things .

It isn't just the tech folks in that part of the country. One of our locals was at the Atlanta Tour last winter, and had his Formula Ford engine catch file while on course. From what I was told, the driver had no idea his car was on fire, and drove past several corner stations (equipped with fire extinguishers) without anyone reacting. Two of our other local drivers saw what was happening from the paddock, and ran over with a fire extinguisher to meet him at the finish line. The grid worker was waving the car back into grid with visible smoke/flames coming out of the engine area as if nothing was wrong, and was yelling at our local guys for stopping the car to put out the fire. Long story short, I'd take two NY Region members over an entire event full of SEDIV guys if I was putting together an event and needed alert workers.....

[77fmod]

Okay Art... Cool your jets man.. I was just wondering about the legality of the modifications and you have explained it thoroughly. I was not aware of a couple of the SIR rules and I truly appreciate you sharing your comments with us.
I suppose we can quit beating this horse now...

All the best,

Johnny B.

[qreshadow]

Hi Johnny,

No need to cool my jets, I'm not angry or upset with anyone although I just got finished answering you with a long winded response only to lose everything due to some web page error. Now, that does make me mad .

Anyway, trying to reconstruct things, let me say that I enjoy conversing with you folks as you seem to be a reasonable bunch to discuss things with and give official (when I was an official) and non-official opinions on subjects that come before this forum. Sometimes the reader can't really determine where the writer is coming from due to the fact that emotions and facial expressions are not available or evident. I try to use "smileys" whenever I can to try and overcome that disadvantage when commenting on forums. Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't .

As I said, I enjoy the camaraderie here and although I do not own a Solo Vee, having established it as a viable Solo vehicle back in the early '80s and then doing the update a few years ago, I do have a somewhat vested interest in seeing you guys succeed. And I truly hope that you do!

As an owner/driver of a dreaded "chain saw", I know my welcome here is one step away from extinction, so I try to be careful. But sometimes the information I do provide to counter what some "outsider" jail house lawyer has said can be disheartening to some of you . That "loophole" business comes to mind. I try to be as gentle as possible but all information should be made available to you. You can then decide in which direction you wish to travel.

Well, I think that about does it. I probably forgot something but as I said earlier, I can't remember sometimes if yesterday actually happened


Have fun, drive fast.

[77fmod]

Your comments are always welcome here... and I actually do have friends that drive those other cars.. I was not looking for a reason to protest as I would much rather beat them on the track. I was just concerned about what appeared to me to be a questionable modification for a performance advantage.
I am on a program to be ready for nationals and hope to finally present a completely up to the rules car for evaluation at that level. I just wish I could find a place to do more testing...

Cheers,

JGB