Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. Collapse Details
    Re: Standard chassis material
    #11
    Keeper of the Asylum K-fab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ. 10.9 miles from the trailheads
    Posts
    10,105
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ProtoDie\";p=\"44977
    IMO * * * * .095 on 1 1/4 tube (min dia with exception to Pilots)
    * * * * * * * * .083 on 1 1/2 tube
    The cage and main frame on the Brigg's cars are made from 1.25 diam chromoly (best I can tell) but thickness??? *Main stuff is 1.25" diam (guessing .083 thickness) with 1" and smaller bracing. *

    The cars passed MTGP, SODA & PACE's rules, so I feel safe in them and would say they should pass anyone's tech.

    May I ask - if we end up stating 1.25 x .095 are you guys going to eliminate my cars from racing? (yet allow Pilots?)
    I'm already worried about the 600 lb min rule...
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Re: Standard chassis material
    #12
    Protodie Master and Vendor ProtoDie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    S.W. Michigan
    Posts
    2,717
    Default
    [
    The cars passed MTGP, SODA & PACE's rules, so I feel safe in them and would say they should pass anyone's tech.

    If it passed all their rules, then it should be good.

    .095 x 1 1/4 minimum was specified in some other class or track rules,,,,,but I do not remember which.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Re: Standard chassis material
    #13
    Senior Member greasemnky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Berkley and Traverse, Michigan
    Posts
    973
    Default
    Wait, you guys are saying if you take a car designed for 40hp, put in 80-100, it may not hold up in the subsequent crash? *[smilie=banghead.gif] Does that mean the escort I see running at milan with the blown V8 may not be as safe as a purpose built drag car *

    I think one of the biggest problems is going to be adapting rules to fit cars that weren't built for a specific series. Most other series (aside from local dirt tracks), the cars were built specifically to run that series. Nascar, F1, SCORE, CORR, etc the cars are built after the rules are established. I think the rules either need to stay a little loose to encorporate all the premade/homebuilts. Or get really specfic, and have people build purpose built cars. I remember watching the super lites on friday night heat on ESPN, thats WHY I have a buggy now. I remember them all being very similar, and of course I was too young to know at the time, but I assume they were built FOR the series.

    Watching the racing at bobs, its apparent, the cars are so diffrent, its hard to see them all be competitive in a series if the cars aren't all built to a standard. Worrying about what people have now shouldn't matter. This is going to require new cars to be really entertaining for any sort of audience. *Just my worthless 2 cents
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Re: Standard chassis material
    #14
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ProtoDie\";p=\"44985
    .095 x 1 1/4 minimum was specified in some other class or track rules,,,,,but I do not remember which.
    That's one of the greatest crimes against racing; "XYZ class runs 1.5" x .095" tubing so we should too". It's ignorance at its worst.

    I'm guilty of specifying oversize materials in some of my designs, but that's for a combination of asthetics, appeasing public perceptions and reducing the amount of emails I receive from budding engineers. However, it would be nice to think that race sanctioning bodies would examine what it is that's being raced and set in place realistic material specs rather than lumping us in with what 3,000 lb race cars are built from.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Re: Standard chassis material
    #15
    Super Moderator minibajaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,841
    Default
    I think 1.25 x .083 is fine, hell 1.25 x .065 is fine as long as the spans aren't too long and the frame is properly braced and triangulated. *For safety though, I would say 1.25 x .083 to err on the stronger side. *This would only be for main roll cage members, bracing could be thinner/smaller. *Also the inspection should include looking at welds and bracing, because thick tube is worthless if the welds are shoddy or the bracing is incorrect or insufficient.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Re: Standard chassis material
    #16
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by minibajaman\";p=\"44998
    I think 1.25 x .083 is fine, hell 1.25 x .065 is fine as long as the spans aren't too long and the frame is properly braced and triangulated.
    1.25" x .065" was the TORC requirement for the main cage and worked perfectly well over the years. We were very particular on the quality of welds - any cracked paint or fresh orange rust around a weld and off it went until it was properly repaired, but it was a very rare occurance.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Re: Standard chassis material
    #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    675
    Default
    I vote 1.25x.065 because thats what i used, and if it was good enough for TORC it should be for us. You can't allow a sled powered pilot to compete with thinner walled tubing, but not a homebuilt.My frame is properly braced and triangulated, and i would not be afraid of it in a roll over.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Re: Standard chassis material
    #18
    Protodie Master and Vendor ProtoDie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    S.W. Michigan
    Posts
    2,717
    Default
    I'm sure it is fine as long as the design is good to go with thinner tubing, and your right about the pilots *being thinner & OK to race.

    I wonder if it makes sense to establish the rules and specs according to what we think it should be for new cars and then find a way to "Grandfather" in existing cars like the pilots and others that may be just outside of the specs we are coming up with.

    Some existing cars may get a "pass" on certain specs for awhile .

    I am thinking this in a few catagories, not just tubing.

    If they prove dominate because of this,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,we pull out the rule book & take away their pass


    I just want to get more people to the track, have everybody driving a safe machine, and get some good racing going on.


    Ultra,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you almost did roll it over, and I could tell,,,,,,,,,,,,,you wassunt scared
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Re: Standard chassis material
    #19
    Default
    Rorty and minibajaman absolutely hit the nail on the head here.
    [quote=Rorty\";p=\"44987]
    Quote Originally Posted by "ProtoDie\";p=\"44985":1d2khkuu
    .095 x 1 1/4 minimum was specified in some other class or track rules,,,,,but I do not remember which.
    That's one of the greatest crimes against racing; "XYZ class runs 1.5" x .095" tubing so we should too". It's ignorance at its worst.

    I'm guilty of specifying oversize materials in some of my designs, but that's for a combination of asthetics, appeasing public perceptions and reducing the amount of emails I receive from budding engineers. However, it would be nice to think that race sanctioning bodies would examine what it is that's being raced and set in place realistic material specs rather than lumping us in with what 3,000 lb race cars are built from.
    [/quote:1d2khkuu]
    For these size cars tubing like that is way overkill. Obviously the thickest tube is needed in the roll hoop and side impact structure, and should have a standard, but the whole car shouldn't be made of the same size tube.
    Quote Originally Posted by minibajaman\";p=\"44998
    I think 1.25 x .083 is fine, hell 1.25 x .065 is fine as long as the spans aren't too long and the frame is properly braced and triangulated. For safety though, I would say 1.25 x .083 to err on the stronger side. This would only be for main roll cage members, bracing could be thinner/smaller. Also the inspection should include looking at welds and bracing, because thick tube is worthless if the welds are shoddy or the bracing is incorrect or insufficient.

    I think that all of us cannot be consumed into only one class. If it was started as one class it would only be a matter of time before the truly competitive cars showed their dominance and the rest would feel left out and want a separate class anyway. Weight is the biggest enemy of any race car and this IS supposed to be a race class/es so you would have people with the SAE BAJA, Pilot/Odyssey, Briggs built cars dominating the field while the more "portly" cars wouldn’t stand a chance. Possibly a sub 800lb/800cc class and a plus 801lb/801cc class....I don't know. Maybe a power/weight division some ware, but that would require expensive measurement equipment. Maybe a race/hobby division? I really do think some division should be made otherwise you’ll have someone in a 600lb race Pilot getting TACOED *[smilie=banghead.gif] * *[smilie=ext_crutch.gif] * by someone in a 1500lb homebuilt land barge. Some form of bumpers and side bars wouldn’t be a bad idea either.

    Just thinking out loud,
    Woody
    Common sense is not so common ~ Voltaire
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Re: Standard chassis material
    #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA
    Posts
    17
    Default
    New to Mini Buggy here... and I openly admit that I'm still getting my feet wet with fab work...So you can take the two cents or leave it... but I've heard that you can apply different tube diameter/thickness/and material for that matter dependent on the potential load that the tube may come into "contact" with. (i.e. 4130 Chromoly for your top hoops with a thicker wall because it will be your primary protection in a rollover) but then reduce the specs and switch to DOM tube in general support lengths. In a nutshell... A well engineered car will have the necessary protection where it is needed and reduced protection where it is not. Lighter= Faster...right? I could be completely off base...but in my mind a combination of materials would be optimal... So long as it is all carefully planned.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •