New Rules Bulletin

[Christian Sorensen]

As Dave Pratte alluded to in an earlier thread, the Rules Committee has reviewed their rules for rollbars and decided that the published specifications are in error.

We had intended to conform to the current SCCA Time Trials regulations on this subject, but had unwittingly used their 2000 rulebook as a reference instead of the current one.

The correction is listed as Bulletin02, and is available for download on the Rules & Regulations (http://www.soloontario.com/rulesregs.html) page of the Solo 1 website.

Christian

[Christian Sorensen]

After much consideration, two additional rules bulletins have been issued:

The Rules and Regulations page (http://www.soloontario.com/rulesregs.html) of the Soloontario site has been updated with links to the two bulletins and the latest version of the Classification Spreadsheet.

Bulletin 2005-03 effectively allows competitors to use Grand-Am Cup Hoosiers or international market Yokohama A048 tires and not be bumped up to Modified class.

Bulletin 2005-04 removes the requirement for owners of convertibles to purchase and install a hardtop if their rollbar does not extend 2" above the drivers' helmet, but does fit under the convertible top.

Christian

[miataboi]

Originally posted by Christian Sorensen

Bulletin 2005-04 removes the requirement for owners of convertibles to purchase and install a hardtop if their rollbar does not extend 2" above the drivers' helmet, but does fit under the convertible top.

Christian

wow.

[Christian Sorensen]

wow.

Yeah.

Dave Pratte emailed me the following to help explain our reasons for the change:

Explanation for the change to Section 2.3.4:

Based on considerable research and several phone conversations with Doug Gill at the SCCA office, we have decided to revise Solo 1's roll bar requirements for convertible vehicles, as reflected in Bulletin #2005 - 04. Reasons for this change are as follows:


1. There is no evidence, based on crash test reports from the Canadian Ministry of Transportation and the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, that hard top convertibles provide any additional safety when compared to soft top convertibles. It is the A-pillar that provides the structural rigidity required to protect the driver in a roll over situation, not the roof/top. The top on a convertible, be it hard (metal) or soft (cloth), offers no meaningful protection or structural rigidity. The distinction in the Solo 1 rulebook between hard and soft top convertibles was therefore a false one and needed to be corrected.


2. The SCCA Solo Rulebook agrees with this position based upon Section 3.3.2, which reads: "For open cars…the roll bar or roll cage height may be reduced ...to the highest possible height which fits within an installed factory specified hard top or convertible top." This is the rule used by the SCCA in their new Club Time Trial program (Level 2).


3. Appendix J of the SCCA Solo Rulebook, which pertains specifically to Solo 1 roll bars, is silent with respect to the issue of convertible top vehicles. Doug Gill of the SCCA confirmed for us that in the case of convertibles their policy is to refer back to Section 3.3.2.


Our roll bar rule with regards to convertible top vehicles was therefore unintentionally misaligned with the SCCA's current position for both Solo 1 and Time Trials. The revised CASC-OR Solo 1 roll bar rule, section 2.3.4, is thus a reflection of our new understanding of the SCCA rules and satisfies our own concerns regarding roll over protection for convertible vehicles based on our research on the subject. We have, in fact, taken a slightly stricter position than the SCCA on this issue, since they do not require roll bars on Stock or Super Stock prepped convertible top vehicles (equivalent to our Starting Class and Starting Class +1), but we continue to feel that our requirement for a roll bar on all convertibles is in the best interest of our competitors safety.

[miataboi]

there are added complexities re: comvertables... and harnesses.

IF your bar is NOT more than 2" above your head with helmet... and you're SECURED into the seat with a 4, 5, or 6 pt... you CAN'T duck down if the inevitable occurs.

In fact... IMHO... something like a CG-Lock in a 'vert is the way to go.. as you're still secured down to the seat-bottom... but have upper-body flexibility to get out of the way if need be.

I suppose the rules use Chuckie Darwin as a balancing factor... but we can not really afford that provision to balance out the leaniency in the rules IMHO.

In theory... a 6'3" mammoth of a man (or BEHEMOTH of a woman) could drive a Miata will a rollbar and a 6-pt harness.

He'd be at or above the rollbar... and couldn't move if he had to.

There is IMHO a frictional component that a hardtop would address...

If you went shiny-side-down in a miata, for example... even with a decent harness... your helmet would likely touch the pavement / grass / debris, etc.

A hardtop would serve to take the friction as opposed to the helmet... and concequently... the drivers head and neck.


I'm not saying that the 'top adds substantial strength or structural regidity (although I can attest that it does to SOME extent in a Miata)

But it provides a layer of protection that can help... and not do harm.

Also... I doubt that these specific scenarios were played out with the Canadian Ministry of Transportation and the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration... I'm talkin' about roll and more specifically, upside-down skid scenarios.

Either way... rules are rules... I just know what I'd do in such a situation... and I like to think that I'd be in the "fittest" category.

[njansenv]

Not only that, but a hardtop is somewhat more likely to prevent debris from entering said sliding vehicle.

[Christian Sorensen]

Yet another new rules bulletin has been issued, along with Version 10 of the Car Classification Committee's Vehicle Classification Spreadsheet.

Bulletin 2005-05 notes the addition of new cars to the spreadsheet, and also adjusts the Dodge SRT-4 (aka turbocharged Neon) horsepower ratings. It has long been known that Dodge has seriously under-rated this car at 230hp: the CCC has settled on 250hp based on numerous independent dyno results.

Check out the Soloontario website (http://www.soloontario.com) for the latest.

[super seven]

so now that I got a hard top for my Boxster I dont need it?

[Chris P]

Rob, run the hardtop. You'll appriciate it if you ever do roll.

[Tashko]

Yet another new rules bulletin has been issued, along with Version 10 of the Car Classification Committee's Vehicle Classification Spreadsheet.


There is a typo in the "Data" tab of the spreadsheet. Row 99, "Eagle Talon TSi AWD, 1990" lists the horsepower as 270. :eek: I wish!
The previous version I saw (ver.7) had it correct at 195 (boo :( )

Anyway, the reason I was looking is that I didn't do some mods I had planned and as a result I should be classed in GT1 instead of my current SGT3. I was a little surprised that I was starting in GT2 according to V10. :)

[Dave]

Sorry about that, Tashko. We probably had someone submit a dyno plot and I plugged in the 270hp rating to see what his class would go up to. Guess it got saved that way by mistake. Just switch it back to 195 whenever you want to calculate your Starting PI. I'll get Chris to correct the online version.

[malcolm]

sorry to respond to a REALLY old post, but I HAD to comment on this...

and you're SECURED into the seat with a 4, 5, or 6 pt... you CAN'T duck down if the inevitable occurs.

If you roll a car, you won't be able to "duck" down no matter what belt system you have. Centrifugal forces* as the car rotates will pull you upright no matter how strong you are. Also, if your car goes in the air and then comes down on the roof, not only do you have to take the rotational acceleration, but add on the "negative" acceleration when the car hits the ground. Those are some MAJOR forces (I am estimating 8-10 sudden G's... maybe more). Anyway, whatever the forces are, it's more than you can overcome, that's for sure.



(*of course, centrifugal forces don't technically exist, as it is really just conservation of momentum. But try telling that to someone who's never taken physics!)

[ScotcH]

sorry to respond to a REALLY old post, but I HAD to comment on this...



If you roll a car, you won't be able to "duck" down no matter what belt system you have. Centrifugal forces* as the car rotates will pull you upright no matter how strong you are. Also, if your car goes in the air and then comes down on the roof, not only do you have to take the rotational acceleration, but add on the "negative" acceleration when the car hits the ground. Those are some MAJOR forces (I am estimating 8-10 sudden G's... maybe more). Anyway, whatever the forces are, it's more than you can overcome, that's for sure.



(*of course, centrifugal forces don't technically exist, as it is really just conservation of momentum. But try telling that to someone who's never taken physics!)

Yes, all that makes sense ... however, the fact that you have a place to go (namely left or right in your seat) is the important part of not being belted in with a racing harness. I know this for a fact, since I got to experience the car coming down on the roof, and my head was NOT pushed into my chest ... If I was wearing a harness, I'm 99% positive I would not be typing this.

[malcolm]

But belts don't exert a lot of lateral force on your body. Sure, it's enough to surpass muscular forces that you or I could exert, but that isn't much in the grand scheme of things (ie. crashing hard). Ever see the in-car video of Petter Solberg crashing hard and his helmet almost hitting his co-driver in the shoulder? I don't think I need to tell anyone that he had some of the best belts available anywhere. Even the best belts can stretch in length as well...

In the case of the roof coming straight down relative to your body, the belts don't matter. If there is enough of a side-force in the accident (highly probable), then you will be pushed to the side no matter what belts you have. Even if there are small side-forces, chances are your head will be a little off-centre, and when the roof comes down, your head will slide one way or the other, and then stretch the belts as well.

Moreover, if you are pushed down, a harness will loosen, allowing your body further lateral movement.

edit:

I know this for a fact, since I got to experience the car coming down on the roof, and my head was NOT pushed into my chest ...

while I am glad to hear you are ok today, you aren't in a position to compare the two situations since you've not seen or experienced (or at least mentioned) an incident where the roof has come down on someone wearing a harness. Therefore we're not really sure what would happen in such an incident, apart from general estimates based on other incidents, or even education in physics. ;)

[craig]

Ever see the in-car video of Petter Solberg crashing hard and his helmet almost hitting his co-driver in the shoulder? I don't think I need to tell anyone that he had some of the best belts available anywhere. Even the best belts can stretch in length as well...

Rally belt installs are typically longer than found in road race. In most cases the shoulder belts cross or are joined behind the seat, and are mounted in-line with the rear wheels. Much more length/stretch than most road-race installs I've seen.

Then again, FIA and rally could learn a lesson from stock cars on how to design doorbars ...

Anyhow, the "duck down" bit isn't explained quite right. In a (cage-less) roll-over, the roof will compress downwards with each successive impact. With a three-point belt, the body will be moved sideways (tilted) as the roof compresses. The head ends up over the driveshaft tunnel, or maybe over the passenger seat. The person doesn't "duck-down," he/she is forced sideways. If one is in a full harness, then the body isn't forced sideways, the neck is ...

[malcolm]

that's assuming, of course, that the driver is forced toward the centre of the car... what if he/she is forced to the other side? There's not much there...

[craig]

that's assuming, of course, that the driver is forced toward the centre of the car... what if he/she is forced to the other side? There's not much there...

That's why a three-point belt is used - towards the center of the car is where physics moves you (most of the time).

Many, many, years ago, in, ah, the interests of science, I have confirmed that this is what indeed happens.

[malcolm]

haha.. well. that makes sense then... :o :)

I can accept that. I just couldn't accept the "ducking" idea. I think we're pretty much all in agreement now.



oh, and as for the original topic... drivers with cars with soft-tops and roll bars under the height of their helments should be required to wear skid-resistant motorcycle helmets!! ;)

(j/k, obviously) :D

[miataboi]

Ask Andre if he could have ducked...

and most solo 1 rolls... in a convcertable (low CG...) would not LIKELY be fast / multiple rolls... I don't think....


just 1/2 to 1 rolls is most likely... if at all...


I think I could duck... but refuse to put the theory to test... so we'll never know!
;) :p