Jump to content

Points for round or square tubing


Scott
 Share

Recommended Posts

How are points assessed if I say replace the beefy steel bumper cores on my car with one made of some roll cage tubing?  What about using square or round tubing to make say a different mount for a radiator, or a sub-frame assembly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding, is that extra roll cage tubes are 10 points per bar (as referenced by the tech sheet).. 

 

normal steel is valued in the rules at 2 points per square foot...  I have seen arguments regarding measuring the surface area, but to the letters of the rule, I think you can measure it as if it were solid...   I have heard rumors that some teams have measured the smallest surface area (as the rules dont specific a max thickness)...   in the spirit of the rule I would be inclined to at least measure the largest "projected area"...  but to my knowledge there has been no specific instruction from tech on "how to measure".

 

Safety items are generally free (other than roll cage tubes see above)..  (sometimes things like footwell protection have been allowed as zero points, but generally no extra bars in front of the dash bar, or behind the hoop)...  I would expect a bumper to be zero points.

 

Note 9.4. NERF BARS OR EXO-SKELETON 9.4.1. Added structural elements that extend beyond the outline of the original body line are not allowed. This includes additional structures holding lights or other components.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MR2 Biohazard said:

If we are charging points for a bumper we have really jumped the shark and something is completely wrong and broken. How could a safety item as a bumper be points?

 

Seriously??  If we're so concerned with bumpers as a safety item how about a rule for leaving them stock as they were designed, engineered,  and tested to perform   to  a standard.   The only reason for modifying or removing is to reduce weight to gain a performance advantage.  Absolutely nothing to do with safety.   Drives me nuts when people try using the "safety" excuse for a  modification to gain a performance  advantage.   Rant over.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Boy Blunder said:

 

Seriously??  If we're so concerned with bumpers as a safety item how about a rule for leaving them stock as they were designed, engineered,  and tested to perform   to  a standard.   The only reason for modifying or removing is to reduce weight to gain a performance advantage.  Absolutely nothing to do with safety.   Drives me nuts when people try using the "safety" excuse for a  modification to gain a performance  advantage.   Rant over.

To counter your point, we made one similar to that, but it also has a second, lower bar that protects our fuel cell that the stock one did not.  It is about 2lbs heavier too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
26 minutes ago, Boy Blunder said:

 

Seriously??  If we're so concerned with bumpers as a safety item how about a rule for leaving them stock as they were designed, engineered,  and tested to perform   to  a standard.   The only reason for modifying or removing is to reduce weight to gain a performance advantage.  Absolutely nothing to do with safety.   Drives me nuts when people try using the "safety" excuse for a  modification to gain a performance  advantage.   Rant over.

I disagree as in some cars the stock bumper is really not strong. Example would be my car as it comes with a thin fiberglass bumper that weights like 2lbs. Good for weight reduction, but if I wanted a stronger one made of roll cage to help with a hit it would weight more. I think a lot of cars come with thin bumpers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of cars running in our races have had weight reduction in areas of the unibody that likely make the original bumper pretty ineffective.  The folks that are really good at math, designed the car as a package and if you take structure out it weakens the whole package.   So adding a bumper like the one pictured is probably a safety thing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, hotchkis23 said:

To counter your point, we made one similar to that, but it also has a second, lower bar that protects our fuel cell that the stock one did not.  It is about 2lbs heavier too.

That is covered in the rules and allowed. As long it does not add rigidity to the car, no points.    

 

9.10.2.11. A reasonable protective and supportive square and/or round tubular structures may be installed around any fuel cell PROVIDED that the structure DOES NOT connect-to, or tie-into any suspension point or suspension pick-up point, or add to the general rigidity of the chassis, or provide any performance advantage whatsoever. Fuel cell protective structures may be attached to portions of the main roll-cage. Tech Inspection may assess additional points for any structure(s) that violate this rule.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Boy Blunder said:

 

Seriously??  If we're so concerned with bumpers as a safety item how about a rule for leaving them stock as they were designed, engineered,  and tested to perform   to  a standard.   The only reason for modifying or removing is to reduce weight to gain a performance advantage.  Absolutely nothing to do with safety.   Drives me nuts when people try using the "safety" excuse for a  modification to gain a performance  advantage.   Rant over.

 

So should we start getting points for removing our bumpers, too?  I mean, my team must have saved a whole seven pounds by removing them!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, moortom said:

 

So should we start getting points for removing our bumpers, too?  I mean, my team must have saved a whole seven pounds by removing them!!! 

No.  But if you remove structure, you can't then ask for free material to modify as you see fit and label it a safety item.

 

There is no bumper rule that I am aware of.  Take your bumper off if you want.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No car has a thin fiberglass "bumper". Most cars come with a thin plastic "bumper cover" over the more substantial steel Bumper that is bolted to most car chassis. This thread seems to be about replacing the structural steel (read heavy) bumpers with lighter components, thus providing a performance advantage. Leave the OE structural parts in place - they were designed as integral parts of the overall crash-worthiness of each car.

 

Edit: After reading Gearhead's reply below and doing a bit of reading his reply is correct. Bumpers do very little for safety or crashworthiness.

 

Adding a bar to protect a relocated fuel cell seems like a good idea.

Edited by revvhappy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No part of any modern car's bumper is there for safety reasons.  They are there for specifically to minimize insurance claimed damage for impacts low enough to not cause any potential injury to begin with.  Bumpers (on street vehicles, at street speeds) are not safety items.

 

Bumpers like the tube structure shown (which I also have on my vehicle, front and rear) *DO* add resistance to damage in offset impacts... and will continue to function even in a deformed state.  Factory "crash structure", not so much.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given how the VIR 24 went, with many fast cars running into mid paced cars, perhaps a stronger bumper is a performance modification? :) 

 

I have tube bumpers. 4130 scraps from the steel yard. My bar is higher in the bumper cover so I can strike all of the cars with no bumper at a reasonably stiff mid beltline point. The stock metal part would go under most cars I see out there, so this sort of helps the issue. Unless we want oem bumper\bumper height to ground rules I think you have to let this one go, and people will build what makes sense to save their cars. 

 

For some reason I am on bumper #3 for the front, and the first rear one i made is still on the car......yet we always say it was the other guys fault..... ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will just drop a note in here about some of the history/origin of where some of the rule came from. I was at Lemons race back around 2010 where there was a wreck. It was actually under yellow, and one car rear-ended another car very hard because he was distracted and did not see the other cars slow significantly. The car car that caused the hit had a removed its factory crash structure and replaced it with a significant tubular structure. As I recall, the car with the reinforcement that caused the wreck didn't suffer much damage, but the driver wasn't in good shape. The theory was that there was little to no energy dissipation because of a hard mounted structure and a hard mounted seat. Lemons then put in rules to limit the modifications and try to preserve the crumple zones at the front and rear. It was a source of discussion for the early Chumpcar rule book as well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As virtual witness to a heavily fortified little german car  vs a heavily gutted merican car, where the little cars driver was injured....+1 for trying to leave some of the factory engineered crumple zones, this may kill a car in a medium shunt but at least the driver does not sustain the full force of impact.

 

On 11/10/2017 at 10:54 AM, revvhappy said:

No car has a thin fiberglass "bumper". Most cars come with a thin plastic "bumper cover"

While not exactly thin, we can not be the only one with fiberglass "under" bumper

 

 

 

 

Edited by Team Infiniti
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tubing bumpers is why NASCAR MANDATES .125 steel plate welded to door bars on the drivers side of ALL national points division cars to prevent injuries from tubing going between the door bars. I turned down a sprint car ride once because of wing struts breaking off on roll overs. Not long after that a WoO driver was stabbed with one that caused internal injuries.  He said it was like getting shot with an arrow. Surprised we don't hear more about that happening.

 

I would much rather be hit in the drivers door by a "stock 5mph bumper than a tube bumper that, as I have seen with my own eyes fold into an arrow that went right between the door bars. Driver broke his arm pretty bad from the bumper getting through the bars. So I disagree that tubing bumpers are safer. Depends on too many factors to make that blanket assumption. Chump only requires "drag race" style door bars. I only build cages with both right and left NASCAR door bars. I havn't raced without full door plates for over 20 years. My door bars will be plated when I show up. Problem is I have to carry extra weight for safety that Chump lets others get away without using.  This isn't 1960-70's formula car racing. I expect to have learned from their mistakes.

 

NASCAR door bars with plating should be mandatory on the drivers side  For all the claims about safety, that is the one place where I believe Chump is doing a dis service to it's teams.  I have just seen too many leave in an ambulance from poor driver door bar construction. Only a few times, but still too many...

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My home made unit was zero points. We chose to run E.C. We are still learning and did not want to interfere with the experienced teams.

 

On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 12:28 AM, MR2 Biohazard said:

If we are charging points for a bumper we have really jumped the shark and something is completely wrong and broken. How could a safety item as a bumper be points?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 10:01 AM, wvumtnbkr said:

No.  But if you remove structure, you can't then ask for free material to modify as you see fit and label it a safety item.

 

There is no bumper rule that I am aware of.  Take your bumper off if you want.

 

I'm still with @MR2 Biohazard on this one.  It's a silly thing to be adding VPI for.

 

If it's not a performance advantage then it shouldn't cost VPI points.  I argue that it is not a performance advantage because having no bumper is already permitted in the rules for no added points.  Creating your own bumper is not increasing performance beyond that.  It's a negligible advantage over stock bumpers, too. 

 

If it's a safety concern then that is another issue and I definitely see the argument there.  If those concerns are deemed to be valid then the practice should be banned or otherwise controlled to keep it safe.  Still, it shouldn't cost VPI since it is not increasing performance. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, moortom said:

 

I'm still with @MR2 Biohazard on this one.  It's a silly thing to be adding VPI for.

 

If it's not a performance advantage then it shouldn't cost VPI points.  I argue that it is not a performance advantage because having no bumper is already permitted in the rules for no added points.  Creating your own bumper is not increasing performance beyond that.  It's a negligible advantage over stock bumpers, too. 

 

If it's a safety concern then that is another issue and I definitely see the argument there.  If those concerns are deemed to be valid then the practice should be banned or otherwise controlled to keep it safe.  Still, it shouldn't cost VPI since it is not increasing performance. 

 

 

If not for performance, why do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...