Projects Banger Belly Tank Build

looks good!

 

looks good kinda makes me want to post a build thread on mine. here is some more more motivation lol

 

So are there two corners in your neighborhood that are missing some stop signs?

looks good so far, when do you plan on being on the salt?

 

I'd like think I'm fairly familiar with the SCTA rules and the 120 degree thing isn't throwing up any red flags. What seems to be your concern?

 

According to kiwi Steve The front hoop must be at 30 degrees from vertical (120). I questioned this becasue no where in the SCTA rule book does it say this. Now if you pick up a copy of the ECTA rule book you will find a small diagram that shows the construction of what looks like a rail car. This diagram is used to show the needed clearence between the front of the drivers helmet and the front hoop. (3in min) The ECTA rule book also shows a min. angle the front hoops must be at (their rules state 110), on the same diagram. The SCTA rule book uses the same diagram but there is no mention of any min angle for the front hoop.

But after talking with Kiwi Steve he told me that the front hoop must be at 120 degrees. Since he is the cheif car inspector, I guess I have to change my cage.

 

Eh that's kind of a grey area that I'll stay out off. You're right that there is no mention of a minimum angle requirement in the rule book but if the head tech is telling you to change it then I'd change it now while you're still building the ch***is. Is this to say that if someone showed up to an SCTA event with a vertical front hoop that we (I'm an inspector btw) would make them cut it off and lay it back? I'd say no. However I do truely think it is in your best interest to not use a vertical front hoop.

Also, I ***ume you have plans for some down bars coming off the rear hoop?

 

Yes I will most likely put one bar on each side about one foot up the hoop. Can you explain to me why there is a min angle requirement? To me it seems like a vertical hoop would be alot stronger than one at an angle. I mean if you had a vertical bar and a bar at an angle, then placed a weight directly on the top, the bar at an angle would fail first. Wouldnt it?

 

Interesting about the 120 deg deal, if you look at the SCTA rule book there is no comment on the angle of the roll bars. I believe what you are saying as Kiwe Steve is one of the inspectors but it is not in the rule book. Of course I only have the 2009 issue so maybe it has been added in 2010.

I will post on the Landracing site to see if I can get any additional info.

Rex

 

That's what I'm trying to say... there currently is not an angle requirement as per the 2010 rule book.

Also, you're not thinking dynamically when it comes to your proposed cage design. The concern isn't an impact from the top of cage forcing downwards (which would be upwards if the car is upside down). The problem is a frontal impact that would force the top of the front hoop backwards. Two parallel vertical hoops are more likely to "parallelogram" than your more contemporary cage design that has the laid back front hoop, a vertical or near vertical second hoop, and at least one overhead bar the connects the two hoops together and then turns down behind the drivers head and connects to the shoulder bar.

Your cage also appears to be pretty tall. Tall cages with vertical bars are the most concerning. Do you have any shots of you in the car with a helmet on? How close are you to the top of the cage?

**EDIT** I'm looking at your pics again you're not as close to vertical as I thought. Let me make a phone call....

 

Beef Stew,

I understand what you are saying about the frontal impact. The angle makes more sence to me now. Its just hard to believe that if it makes that much difference why it wouldnt be included in the rule book? I do have some pictures of me with a helmet on in the car. But the files are too large to upload here. If you have an email address I could send them to you. I agree with you that it might be a bit too tall, but one think to keep in mind is, Im 6'3" tall. So if I make it too short I wont fit! haha I prob picked the wrong type of car to build, too late now!!

 

Just saw your edit. The front bar as it sits is 100 degrees. I could easily make that 105 -110 with out really tearing much apart. Any help would be great!

 

Hmmmm! Gonna' follow this! Very cool!

 

PM sent.

 

</TD></TR><TR><TD cl***=smalltext vAlign=bottom width="85%"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>I asked the question regarding the 120 deg for the roll bar on the Landspeed site under the SCTA Rules section and Dan Warner, who is an SCTA board member and a official at Speed Week says that there is NO rule regarding the angle of the roll bar. I would talk to Kiwi Steve to get a better clarification of what he thinks the rule is before I started making changes. Kiwi Steve's E mail is: flyingkiwi97@aol.com and the number one guy in charge of "special construction", which your car would be, is Lee Kennedy, E mail techchaircars@scta-bni.org. A couple of E mails will be much easier than cutting tubing.

Rex
<TABLE style="TABLE-LAYOUT: fixed" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD height="100%" vAlign=top width="85%">The answer is no. No reply to Doug.

I do know that there is a restriction on seat angle for Top Fuel, etc. I am sure there is an optimum angle for cages, seats etc. to be safe.

The SCTA/BNI does not restrict cage angle.

DW

</TD></TR><TR><TD cl***=smalltext vAlign=bottom width="85%"><TABLE style="TABLE-LAYOUT: fixed" border=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD cl***=smalltext width="100%" colSpan=2></TD></TR><TR><TD id=modified_116812 cl***=smalltext vAlign=bottom></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Rex,

Thank you very much for the help! And I agree with you 100 precent, emails are much easier than cutting tubing!! I will do my best to get a correct answer. I have a friend that is building a similiar car and is running into the same problem!

Mike

 

"and the number one guy in charge of "special construction", which your car would be, is Lee Kennedy, E mail techchaircars@scta-bni.org. A couple of E mails will be much easier than cutting tubing." This is the best advice; I used this method for clarifying some questions on our build last year - PLUS it will give you some do***entation (print out the e-mails and bring them with you to tech) in case there are further questions. Beef Stew and Rex, thanks for helping to resolve this question. fordrat31 - nice build - see you on the Salt. vic #325 D/GRMR

 

Just an FYI for everyone, Kiwi Steve Davies is the head SCTA tech so if his guidance is to do something a specific way, even if it isn't specified as such in the rule book, you should do it. Steve is a very experienced and knowledgeable ch***is builder and his advice is supplemental to the safety minimums that are annotated in the rule book.

The specific category/cl*** chair persons are voluntary positions and their primary function concerns more with vehicle cl***ifications than safety tech.

I want to make sure those of you that are either building a car or interested in building a car for SCTA compe***ion are in contact with the appropriate personnel. Kiwi Steve is the correct point of contact for a build like this.

 

Beef Stew,

I agree with you. I have talked with Kiwi Steve a few times and he is very knowledgeable. I just hope that this min. angle is mention in future rule books. It could save alot of headaches.

Mike

 

Just alittle update;
- I still havent decided what needs to be done to the roll cage.
- Waiting for the cam to come back from the grinder, in order to finish up the motor.
- Trying to decide how I can mount shocks to the front.

I travel alot on business, so when im away it gives me time to get a game plan together. That way as soon as I get home I can start working, not screwing around trying to decide what needs to be done first.

 

Looking good! I hope you both have up-to-date rulebooks? 2008 was the first year for our 4005 V4/BGL. Only 10% of the new cars that year p***ed tech the first go-around. Don't hesitate to ask questions!

 

Well It has been some time since I made any kind of update to my build here. I finally pulled the car out of the corner of the shop and got back to work. The cage was completly re-designed and it now meets all the requirements of the current rule book. It now sits much shorter and has the front hoop bar laid back to 122 degrees.

I had to tweak the seat a good amount to make it work with the lower cage height. Its mounted in there now and is suprisingly comftorable.

I stole some design chararstics from Old Crow and used some MG shocks up front.

 

Few more pictures.

 

looks good... Get to it....
How is the engine coming? Do you still have Eric doing the work?

 

Yea me and Eric are working away on the motor. Should be ready to run in just a bit. I was actually hoping to talk to you about making an intake for the car. Thinking about maybe using a Holley 4 barrel.

 

very creative!

 

Ready to retire. Been thinking of Bonneville for quite awhile. I put Bonneville on the bucket list. I'm going to watch your build closely. Steve

 

Thank you! If you're a Buddhist, you go to Tibet. If you,re a motor head you go to Bonneville.

 

Well again it has been awhile since I have done any kind of update so I guess its about time I get on that. I decided that the way I had the rear end mounted just wasn't going to cut it so I started from scratch and came up with a triangulated design that is much stronger than my original method.

I have also changed my plans for a transmission for the thrid time. I have finally descided to go with a side shift flathead. This will make a shift mechanism must easier, with the use of a few push-pull cables.

 

Subscribed!

 

I don't want to get into a ******* contest, because that's just stupid, particularly replying to a year-old post. But in the two trips I've made to Bonneville, as a spectator, I've talked to racers both times that had to jump through hoops to get through tech because their car was built to the rule book, and then things needed to be changed once they got there.
I've also talked to a couple of racers here on the East Coast (one in the 2-Club), who ran into the same problem.

And I've lurked a bunch on landracing.com, and see a very common theme when discussing builds and tech/safety equipment--There seems to be an emphasis made that the rules in the book are "minimums."
As someone who has been involved with several race cars in other sanctioning bodies, and have a lot of friends who have raced in several different sanctioning bodies, I've found that philosophy to be unique to SCTA.

The rules are the rules... they ARE actually "black and white." It shouldn't be open to interpretation, let alone from the tech inspectors of the sanctioning body. That's why the rule book exists.

To be told in the middle of a build that the rule book is wrong, or what's in the rule book is "a minimum" and it needs to be changed, makes the rule book merely a "suggestion book."
To have someone spend the money to build a car, using the SCTA rule book as the guide, and then get there and find out it won't p*** tech, even though it meets the published rules, is unconscionable.

I can't imagine someone showing up at an event sanctioned by the SCCA, NHRA, IMSA, F1, SCORE, NASCAR or any of the other sanctioning bodies and have them say "That was the minimum. We'd like to see it a little stronger," or "You need to add this to race" or "Change these to race" even though it was built to the rule book.

I looked at my 2011 SCTA book, and there is absolutely no mention of the 120-degree angle on the roll cage hoop. Obviously it has been discussed by the tech committee, and they've decided they want to see a 120-degree angle. So why isn't it in the rule book?

Frankly, as someone who is helping prep a car for the salt, 4-Port-Riley's statement that "only 10-percent of the new cars p***ed tech" frightens the hell out of me. I understand racers are going to ignore the rule book, but not 90-percent of them.

If it isn't in the rule book, it isn't a rule, and the car should p*** tech each and every time.

-Brad