Projects Banger Belly Tank Build

Very cool build!

 

I agree... this stuff should be in the rule book.

If you have only a 10 percent success rate at people following your manual... you need to write a better manual.

The problem is, part of the rule book has been borrowed from the NHRA... part of it comes from the experience gathered from crashes... and then there's this whole other part that is in people's heads.

I think we could do everyone a favor and set a standard for rule books if we could get that knowledge into the rule book... use actual PHOTOGRAPHS instead of ambiguous drawings... and make it something that people can truly follow.

It would be pretty easy... have someone do some CAD drawings of roll cages... seat belt mounting, seat mounting, fire bottle placements... all on CAD.

Builders could then click on a link... manipulate the drawings and see what they have to build.

The SCTA does a great job of helping people build their cars... but I think a lot of the energy could be focused on a better rule book that helps the racer build a better car.

Back to your roll cage...

When I have built roll cages, I try to ask the question "What would happen if?"

Like what would happen if it landed on it's head? If took a bllow from the front? What if it took a blow from the side, or even the back?

When I see your cage... that upside down triangle is going to transfer force to that horizontal bar that is just above the frame rail.

The problem is, that unsupported bar could bend. It's not likely that it would, but a simple tube down to the frame would strengthen it.

That said... taking the force from two points and concentrating it to one point is not advisable.

It is better to take the force from two points and continue it down to the frame... or better yet, have it transfer down to four points.

Think of triangles.

If you had one triangle, upside down, and a 1000lbs sitting on it.. it would be transferring 1000 pounts to once spot on the frame.

If you flipped that triangle over, and put the 1000lbs on the tip... it would be transferring 500lbs down each leg of the triangle, to two spots.

What your upside down triangle does help is with the whole cage "parallelogramming"(sp?)

With what you have... one little tube down to the frame is going to make it better...

If you were to start over, running the main hoops down to the frame with an "X" in between them would both lessen the force to the frame at each attachment point and also offer really good protection against parallelogramming.

Another thing is to have lateral support as close as you can to the top.

I'm sure there are other cage builders who have had their stuff go through real life "stress tests" that can chime in here.

I think drag racers have more experience with this... having crashed more cars...

But the thing about land speed racing is that you are so far away from the safety crew that it needs to be extra special.



Sam

 

Brad,

The thing you need to understand that unlike NASCAR or NHRA or whatever where every single car in the same cl*** is EXACTLY the same, every single car at an SCTA event is ENTIRELY different from the next. Tell me how you think a rule book should be written that covers in it's entirety every single possible car that might role through tech. The simple truth is that you can't. So the SCTA has done the absolute best that they can to provide rules that are flexible enough to work for everything... one size fits all if you will.

I specifically do new car tech and 4 port riley is actually wrong. I think less than 10% of new cars make it through tech the first time through and it has nothing to do with interpretation of the rule book. It has to do with things being forgotten, things being over looked, or not meeting the minimum spec. Nearly every single car I look at has had to come back through for something. It's called a learning curve. The only guys who usually get it right are those that have done it before.

The most common problem, which actually is a major one, is seat belts. Most seat belts are installed incorrectly. There's a ******* picture for each type of seating position and people still get it wrong. So we give them words plus pictures and they still don't get it. That's the SCTA's fault? I've seen seats not securely mounted, window net mounting tabs on the outside of the cage when the rule books says it must be on the inside, wrong sized cage gussets, no trans blanket, holes in firewall, no traction bar slings, wrong or no roll cage padding, fire nozzles in the wrong spot, etc etc etc. the list goes on and on of **** people either forget or don't do right even though they swear up and down that they read the rule book.

The SCTA also gives plenty of opportunity to be in touch with tech inspectors, the head tech as well as the tech chair and all the cl*** chairs during initial vehicle conceptualization all the way through showing up on the dirt or salt. If someone shows up without ever having contacted someone in the ***ociation with at least a napkin drawing of their car and some basic information on what they plan on doing then it's their own damn fault because they didn't take it upon themselves to ask the question about their roll cage design before they went and built the damn thing and then had it powder coated. There are literally tech inspectors all over the U.S. who would be more than happy to take a look at your car ahead of time to make sure you're on the right path.

Take for example T-man's build. Trent calls me nearly every week with questions and not only is he contacting me but he's getting ahold of other people too. I have no doubt that Trent will make it through tech. The real problem are people who used to drag race or do this or do that and they think "Hey I can read a rule book and run a welder so i should be good to go" and they set off on their merry way. Well drag racing or road racing or whatever they used to do is NOT land speed racing. It's an entirely different sport and it should be treated as such.

What part about the rule book being the minimum isn't sinking in for you? It's basically the idea that you can always do more. If you build to the rules then you'll probably be safe but it's your *** in the car. If you feel comfortable going 350 mph with 1 5/8" x .120 wall tubing then fine go for it but someone with half a brain should know that they can always do more. That's the point: the SCTA gives you a box to work within and what you decide to put in the box is up to you. Should someone with more experience and knowledge than you (the tech staff) make a suggestion then I think it'd be in your best interest to follow along with what they're saying.

Brad, if you re-read through this thread you'll see that there is no 120 degree angle rule... never was and probably never will be. I think what we have here is a cl***ic case of miscommunication. It was merely a suggestion from our head tech that fordrat's cage, which originally did not meet our specs, change his nearly vertical front hoop to something with more angle. For whatever reason fordrat made mention about this being a rule (even though its not), and Mr. Schimmer took it upon himself to ask if this unwritten rule was a rule only to find out that, wow, it wasn't a rule. Problem solved. It was only a suggestion from someone who builds land speed cars for a living. The car builder who's never built a car before might not always be right but the guys that have been doing this for a very long time actually might be a bit more knowledgeable. So, in review, it's not in the rule book because it's NOT a rule.

Back to T-man for a moment... I suggested to him that he come to Speed Week early and screw all that rubber-neckin spectator business and come sit in tech with me and learn something and that's exactly what he did. I think if you asked Trent if he learned anything he'd say yes. In fact he probably learned a lot. And the best part is that ANYONE can come and do this. You can read the rule book all day long and still get it wrong. When you see how it's applied first hand you usually "see the light" and actually understand the point behind the rules, not just the "black and white" words that are printed on a page.

Brad, I hope you're very afraid about getting through tech. There's nothing more that I like hearing than spectators being afraid of screwing something up and not getting the chance to race because for most people that chance is not acceptable. Someone who doesn't want to fail will get help and ask questions and make sure they're **** is right before they show up. If you don't take advantage of the resources that are provided to you then that's your choice.

See ya on the salt. BTW fordrat and I have been emailing back and forth about this build for months now. He's on the right track.

 

Sam,

As someone who actually did make it through tech on his first attempt, I'm finding it hard to believe that you can actually say this with any kind of validity. What "stuff" should be in the rule book? Everything that could be in the rule book is. You were apparently able to figure it so shouldn't everyone else be able to too?

Have you looked in the rule book lately? There are CAD drawings. There's one generic example for each type of cage design type. But I ask again, how to you write a rule book that covers every car ever made on earth? How can someone expect the SCTA to provide them with a drawing of a roll cage design that's meant specifically for their car when their car could be anything from a Model T to a Honda CRX to something no one's ever seen before?

BTW there isn't a single thing in our current rule book that's been borrowed from the NHRA. Both sanctioning bodies following many similar SFI guidelines but that's not to say that part of our rule book came from the NHRA.

 

BTW Mike, sorry for hi-jacking your thread. If someone feels the need to try and put a purely volunteer organization that's the last bastion of true amateur racing on the same level as professional race organizations like NHRA, F1, or NASCAR, then send me a PM and we can discuss this further.

 

fordrat31, this is a cool build, and I hope to see you on the salt!

Kiwi Steve and Beef Stew have taken the time to give you very good advice- it would probably be good to heed it!

I was a rookie at Bonneville last year, and we had our tribulations. Through it all, Steve, Nathan, and countless others offered good, logical, advice and directions-even some stern admonishments, but they never steered us wrong.

Good luck with the build!

 

It's guys like you that are keeping hot rodding alive and well. Thanks for that,you're doing a great job good luck with you build.

 

Well, without addressing every single thing, I'll say this: It isn't just my opinion. This topic has come up on landracing a whole bunch. And when I looked at it last night, there was a discussion and someone casually posted "Not any more. Check out section 1.a of the new rule book."
So I did. Here is the new text for the 2012 rule book:

"1.A TECHNICAL INSPECTION:
All inspections will be made using the current year SCTA Rules and Records book. No compe***or will be required to modify/revise/rebuild/augment any component or feature of the compe***ion vehicle without a direct citation of the relevant rule and a clear description of the infraction/shortfall/misunderstanding of a specific entry in the rulebook. In the event of a continuing divergence of opinion between the inspector and the compe***or the issue shall be referred to the Chief Inspector. "


This tells me the sanctioning body made the very first rule in their book "All tech inspectors must follow the rule book."

I no longer have the slightest concern about p***ing tech.

See you on the salt!

-Brad

 

Nathan, I'm gonna apologize for my *****y tone last night... and some of the things I said... I just get frustrated when I hear about guys getting to the salt and not being able to run, or have to change a bunch of things when it could have been avoided. I have also witnessed a bit of inconsistency between tech inspectors... which supports the notion that there is a lot of knowledge out there that is not in the rule book.

Take the front wishbone strap for instance... I was out there a few years ago and can remember certain tech guys asking that racers put a cable around their front wish bone ends to restrain them in the event of a crash. Sounds like a very reasonable thing to ask... as a front end can easily break away in the event of a crash, or even a spin and those split bones, or four bar bars and be deadly. Also, if a car were to be involved in a spin, and the wishbone were to dig into the ground, it could cause the car some serious problems.
Another strap that every car should have is a strap around the rear ladder bar heim that mounts to the ch***is. The front of all ladder bars should be retained in the event of a heim joint failure... and protection against it poking up through the drivers seat or down to the ground is important.


Another example of ambiguity that I have ran across... and because I asked the question I didn't have a problem... is the gusset that is required at all tube junctions of hoops and shoulder rail.
I have seen guys build too much into this area (which I guess you can never over build something) and I have seen some not have enough. The wording could be tuned up a bit... and rather than say "required at tube junctions of hoops and shoulder rail." it should say "required at tube junctions of hoops to shoulder rail." The way it is in there now, guys have interpreted it to mean that there are to be these gussets at all hoops and at all tubes that meet the shoulder rail (bar).
I had a question (and it was answered) about the 4" rule on that gusset... that could be cleared up with a simple dimension line on the Figure 2 drawing for those gussets. Where do you measure the 4" at? Is it 4" strap steel? 4" of welded area? 4" from the open corner? Or 4" on the long end of the strap?

And I like the CAD drawings in the 2011 rule book I have... but there are some contradicting aspects to other photos... and what worries me, the drawings are not prime examples of cage construction, having things like the shoulder bar put in sheer by the bird cage, (on the roadster CAD drawing five of the six tubes put the shoulder bar in sheer) and there is no triangulation of the back part of the "special construction streamliner/Lakester" cage and those tubes that have an "S" curve in them should be straight. Please let me know if I'm off base here, as you have inspected far more ch***is than I have.

I don't want to sound like an ***-hole... I respect you, and all the hard work you put in to the land speed racing community. I would just like to help in some way to tighten things up a bit, and make it easier for guys wanting to get out there and race.

I hope we can still be friends.

Sam

p.s. I think we all get calls from T-man on a weekly basis... he's a great guy who must have an enormous phone bill!

 

Well let's see, I guess my original cage design has really upset some people. When I had first built the cage I didn't have a clue as to proper design, so I did just what Nate is talking about and contacted as many SCTA inspectors as I possibly could with pictures. Steve gave me the suggestion to lean the front hoop back a bit more, and at first I couldn't see the reasoning behind this so for ha ha's I posted a question about it on here and it opened a huge can of worms. I really am truly sorry for doing that, I should have just sent the question back to Steve.

I am very very happy Steve and Nate gave me the suggestions to redesign the cage. I was also told that I needed to get out to the salt and take a look at how others have designed their cars. That's just what I did. I think I took over a 1000 different pictures of cage design on the salt. With all the pictures in hand I set out to rebuild my cage. In my own opinion I feel that the new design is far superior to the old. Even though it might still need some fine tuning. I haven't solid welded anything together yet so simple modifications will be easy at this point.

Another suggestion that Steve and Nate gave me was to shorten the height of the cage. This was an area that really needed attention. I was able to shorten the cage by almost 6" which is a huge difference. With the top half of the tank fitted I have 9.5" of cage poking out of the top.

I sure hope I didn't piss off a lot of SCTA inspectors with my can of worms. I truly am sorry if I have.

Mike

 

Nobody is pissed off... just making some suggestions.

I am truly sorry if you took my post that way.

I am not an inspector, by any means... and I don't think you pissed any inspectors off as Nate and Steve are helping you out... so, you are good to go.

The only suggestion that I made was to put a small tube at the bottom of that upside down triangle... on the other side of the horizontal tube, down to the frame.

I am just stoked to see you building a banger motor powered LSR car! It'll be fun to get together on the salt and talk racing!

Sam

 

Hi Mike
The car looks great.
Sure there will be a few areas in need of a little change but overall you know what needs to be done and from what I see its coming out great. The side shift gear box with cable operation should work well.
Years ago I drag raced an old flathead Ford powered altered that used the early Ford side shift transmission. We modified the trans so the clutch was not needed for the gear change once I left the line. The modification was called pro shifting it was an origianl design done for the factory teams running under the Mopar banner.
From what I remember every other tooth on the blocking rings for the syncros was removed. If that type of mod was done in your gear box during a run you would not have to worry about pushing in the clutch. As we both know theres so little room up front for our feet so the less movement you have during a run the better its going to be for you.
Ronnieroadster

 

Yeah Mike, you didn't piss anyone off, nor did you open a can of worms. From a lot of posts on the salt forums, consistency through tech inspection has been an issue, with a lot of racers saying the car met the published rules, but changes needed to be made as per an inspector on race-day.

A friend and I are planning a build--he's got the body, we've been gathering info, studying posts, studying the rule book, and reading everything we can get our hands on. He's built and raced cars in the US, Mexico and Canada for different events, so he's well-versed in building to the book and showing up and p***ing tech.
We're both concerned that after driving 3,000 miles across the country, we'll be told our steering wheel is too big or we've got the wrong kind of leg restraint/protection on the roll cage (both specific examples, one from an acquaintance of mine, the other an acquaintance of another racer).

There is a reason the first rule in the book now, Section 1.a, is that tech inspectors have to go by what's printed in the book.

Is your car better for their suggestions? Of course it is.
But if you didn't call them, and showed up with your front bar up like it originally was, they'd have bounced you, even though there's no mention of it in the rule book. If 110-120 degrees is what they want, then there should be a notation on the diagram.

If the standard for seat belt mounting is in the book, there's no excuse not to get that right, and the car should be bounced.
If there's no notation about captive restraints for radius rods, the car shouldn't be bounced, and the rule should be changed in the next printing of the book.

-Brad

 

I am keeping tabs on this post looking good.

 

Sam I agree with you a bar under the triangulation would be a good idea. Even another triangle flipped the opposite way using some 1" DOM might work as well.

Ron, I am going to have to send you a question about that trans mod. I would be very interested in that. Like you said the area around your feet is very limited. If I didn't need a clutch pedal that would help a ton.

I appreciate all the feed back guys it helps alot to make the car better overall in the end.

 

I think the overall height is going to work out well. I'm about 6'3", just for a size comparison.

 

Good to know! We've got a friend who hasn't needed a step stool to change light bulbs in his house since he was 12... we've talked about a 4-banger Chevy-powered tanker, but his height has been a concern.

I'll be sure to show this to him!!!

-Brad

 

You have some creative packaging to do!

Here's how we stuffed our pedals into the left side of the trans...



We then made a box that seals the mechanism up front to the firewall... making it water tight. And the brake, operated by the heel... has a master cyl. out behind the trans crossmember.

I drove it around town... it takes a little getting used to, but it works.

Believe me... our team took a whole night, sitting around a table at the local burger joint to think about this one.

Sam

 

Nate, fordrat and others, this thread has been one of the best on the net PERIOD. For the record, I only call Sam once every few weeks and only pissed katie off once that I know of. I can not state how much help Nate has been to me from the point where I hatched this car over a year ago! Thanks Nate. Brad, I respect you and you writings in the mags plus your background. With that said, lots of your concerns would be alleviated if you did as I did and hung over Nates shoulder in Tech. Thursday and Friday are good days at Speedweek. I found that Nate, BigTim and KiwiSteve are VERY comp***sionate and easy going. Suggestions are p***ed along as well as words of encouragement, in the end, they don't want us to ****ing DIE.

I would also like to end this with an anecdote since I have been a contractor and carpenter most my life. "Built to code" means you met the minimum standards" in essence a "D" grade, love to see builders brag about being to code. Built to the rulebook means the same thing.

Samiyam got the best compliment with his 60mph T when he went through tech. One of the inspectors stated that he built the thing for 300 mph! And that my friends is a good thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I understand what you're saying, but "built to the rule book" means "If you follow every rule in here, you can race." Period. End of story.
It doesn't mean "If you follow every rule in here, you'll be most of the way there when you get to tech, and then we'll tell you what else we want on your car so you can race."
For instance, one of the previous examples of cables over radius rods and captured heims. Is it in the book? No. Then it's a good suggestion, but since it isn't in the book, you p*** tech and can race. It's not "Well, this tech inspector thinks it's a good idea, so once you get that squared away, you can race." You shouldn't have to spend your first year at an event watching them tech cars. Good God man, can you imagine having to do that for La Carrera or the Targa Newfoundland or the Silver State?

They've been racing out there for 60 years... the rule book is updated every year. There should be zero reason a guy gets out there and has to add safety equipment to his vehicle that isn't specifically mentioned in the rule book.

And like I've said... it's obviously been an issue, because Rule 1.a is now "The tech inspectors must follow the rule book: if a car is built to the book, it is legal."

Suggestions are great. Tips during a build are great. Asking and watching and reading and asking some more is all standard stuff in a race car build. But the rule book is the blueprint, and if more than 90-percent of the builders aren't getting it right, the blueprint needs some modifying.

-Brad

 

I resemble that remark - and yes Brad, I've been watching this thread! The issue is not so much my height (6'6") as it is the claustrophobia... I need a little wiggle room so's I don't freak out

 

You'll be too nervous about getting strapped in, making the p*** and not stalling the engine when you let the clutch out, keeping an eye on the gauges, etc. etc. to think about the fact that you're in a cigar tube!

Besides... you'll be in and out of the thing a thousands times during mock-up and build. It's not like you're gonna show up one day, jump in the car, close it up and make a p***.

Not only that, but between your height, and mine and steve's... um... dimensions in the other direction... we'll have plenty of room built in!

-Brad

 

Not trying to stir anything up, just clarify the "sling thing" a bit as I see it. I'm just a part time go fer participant and also involved in a new build, not an inspector.

From the 2011 SCTA Rules and Records book: page 37, 3.S Drive Lines, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, "All traction bars and trailing links shall have a metal sling near the front attaching point with a minimum of 1/4 in. diameter.", 4th sentence, "If the rear wishbones are split and attached to the frame rails to act like traction bars, a 1/4 in. minimum metal sling is required". This isn't a new area of concern, '08 book has the same wording on page 35. '76 book page 18, 42 Drive lines last sentence is "All traction bars and trailing links must have a metal safety sling near the front attaching point with a minimum of !/4" diameter". '69 book page 8, 31 Drive Lines, last sentence is " All accessory type traction bars must have a metal safety sling near the front attaching point".



If there is anything in the rule book about slings on front end rods, bars, and parts I haven't found it yet. Could be there though, I usually learn something new to me every time I pick up the book.

Ed

 

There you have it!

It's there... but the one for the front bones isn't.

"But it's a good idea!"



And thanks Ed, I went and changed my original post a bit to keep me from looking like such an ***!

Hahaha!

Sam

 

Started work on the fuel/water tank today. I decided that I should make it out of insulation foam first to fine tune it's fit. I plan to put a divider in to make part a fuel tank and the rest a water tank. If my calculations are right it should hold a total of 18 gallons. 2 fuel and 16 water. It is also positioned over the rear axle with will help with traction.

 

VERY slick! Great plan for the figuring and pattern making, and a good idea for weight placement as well.

-Brad

 

I love your build but, aren't you concerned about getting the fuel hot from the water tank?

 

Yes, admittedly, there are some tech inspectors that are a bit over zealous when it comes to inspection. I've witnessed it first hand many times. It isn't fair to have the compe***ors be at the mercy of each individual tech inspector and there have been some efforts made to help alleviate this problem. But really though, like T-man said, it's always in the best interests of the racer. The last thing we want to see is people get hurt or killed.

But in our own defense, we're people too and we make mistakes. Some guys do tech all the time. I do every El Mirage plus Speed Week. Some guys do Speed Week only and maybe they aren't doing tech as often as they should be. All the tech inspectors are volunteers and we value their time and commitment so it's hard to turn anyone away. Sometimes there's really a lot of stuff to look at and critique that after the hundredth car you might slip up and say something like "you need slings on your front split wishbone" when you really don't. Does it kill you to put a 1/4" braided cable around your wishbone? Does it mean you can't run? Does it mean the inspectors hate you and want to h***le you? No, it doesn't. It's a volunteer organization and a majority of our participants are back yard/garage builders working on a budget and working with what they have and the same thing goes for our inspectors. We're not pros, we're not paid, we're not certified. We just do the best that we can to keep our participants safe.

BTW the most frequent ***** I see on the landracing forums is people not understanding the rule book, not problems with tech inspectors. After doing this for 15 years now, I think I can say that people seem to sometimes lack a general understanding of written English. You'd be surprised what comes through tech. Sometimes it makes us wonder what people are thinking when they do this stuff.

Also, to Mike and everyone else.... no hard feelings and no reason to apologize. I'm just glad you're getting the help you need and are making good progress.

 

My father actually mentioned that to me. I was thinking one of two different ways. The first is to make the dividing wall insulated in some way. The next would be to cool the fuel after it leaves the tank by running it through an ice water box. I think the ice water box is going to be the easiest way to go.

 

The ultimate goal should be just that, to keep people safe!