Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

5/19/16 8:01 PM USAC SPRINT TECHNICAL UPDATE: CAR CONSTRUCTION

http://usacracing.com/news/sprint-ca...r-construction

http://usacracing.com/media/k2/items...d0d03145_S.jpg





USAC TECHNICAL UPDATE – TB2016-SP002

SPRINT CAR SERIES

Date: May 19, 2016

Date Effective: May 19, 2016

TITLE: Car Construction

304 Roll Cage and Chassis

A. All cars must have a roll cage, which is integral with the frame anddoes not encroach upon an imaginary cylinder, 20 inches in diameter, extending through the top cockpit opening directly above the seat. The roll cage should extend four (4) inches above the driver’s helmet when seated in the driving position.

B. The following are the minimum frame/chassis material requirements.************************************* ********************************************

**** Must be constructed of 4130 normalized tubing

**** TOP RAILS 1 1/2” x .095”

**** BOTTOM RAILS 1 3/8 x .083”**

**** ROLL CAGE UPRIGHTS 1 3/8” x .083”

**** ROLL CAGE CROSSMEMBER 1 1/2” x .095”

**** UPPER RAILS 1 3/8” X .083”

**** REAR END SAFETY BAR HIGHLY SUGGESTED 1” x .083”

**** Maximum width of main frame tubes 29 1/2 inches

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

So does it put someone out there now out of a ride or is it just precaution?

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

I'm having a brain fart here about this, does this mean USAC wants bars across the top of the cage now? If so I was in favor of this till a friend showed me some photos of cages that collapsed due to these bars. It was more than 1 car that had the cage collapse in a crash. Maybe if the bars went from corner to corner so the uprights can support the weight in case of a crash. The 4" from top of cage to drivers head I like, told a driver that at a race & he went out got on his head & got hurt. Those belts stretch drivers, don't fool yourself they don't, you see a car that's been in a real serious violent wreck go look at the stitching on the belts. They're probably not in a straight line anymore, toss those belts out. Be safe out there, many of you I call friends out there, God Bless:6:

I just took it to mean the front and rear ends of the roll cage, maybe some clarification is in order, just sayin!😂Bob

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

I generally agree this is probably a good thing, however-effective yesterday? That should probably say next year. Even a tall cage car doesn't give most drivers 4" of head room. They will kill their car count the rest of the year and keep any locals from running with them for awhile.

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

I actually read it completely opposite. I think that it bans all of the over head bars.

does not encroach upon an imaginary cylinder, 20 inches in diameter, extending through the top cockpit opening directly above the seat.

Most of the halo bars are directly over the driver. It would be nice for some clarification.

Usac used to strickley enforce the 4 in rule when Norm was in charge dont think they care much anymore just want car count seen some things at race tracks now old Norm would say just load it back up lol

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

I wonder if this has anything to do with Stockon not being allowed to run the Woo show at Haubstaubt because his cars tubing did not meet Woo standards. Wonder if that opened USAC's eyes that guys might be building their cars out of thinner tubing. Just a thought.

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

No one is out of a ride.
It is the existing rule, except for the thickness of the lower frame rails.
The issue was brought up after the WoO race at Tri-State.
The rule was changed to allow a huge portion of the existing cars to be legal.
Our car was already legal, but I commend USAC for making a common sense, quick decision to put the issue to rest.
Gas City tonight, full field, best Non Wing racers on Earth minus a few.

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

Im not sure what that was about. WoO also changed the rule on the wing mount tubing as some of them had been collapsing, Could have had a old one.

I doubt he was trying to get away with anything, Home track.
We'll probably never know and the real reason is known only by WoO and Stockons team, As it should be.

That four inch rule certainly wasn't in effect back in the days Sheldon Kinser's head stuck out three inches above the cage.

The car did not meet WOO standards because the lower frame rails, but would be under USAC rules. .083 lower rails are legal in usac but the outlaws require them to be .095. I think they were just defining the rule after they heard about it.

USAC's rule for the past three years (I think) had been for the lower frame rails to be constructed of 1.5" x .083" or 1.375" x .095" tubing. They adopted these rules in conjunction with the WoO and AllStars adopting identical rules. This rule was made necessary by teams building chassis out of thin wall tubing on the lower rails to improve performance. As teams kept making these rails thinner, safety concerns developed as a hard crash would break the lower rails. Our F-5 chassis were made out of 1.375" x .083" tubing and worked extremely well.

Our team and many others complied with these new rules. All Triple X chassis conform to the WoO/AllStar standard and I would wager that Maxim's and most other chassis manufacturer's do as well since they build cars primarily for WoO and AllStar competition. When Chase took his car to Haubstadt to compete with the WoO they measured the thickness of his frame rails during the tech inspection and found the lower rails were too thin.

It is my understanding that when Levi contacted DRC about this, he was informed that ALL DRC chassis had the thin wall lower rails which would make them illegal unless USAC changed the rule. Apparently a chassis manufacturer located in Indianapolis, building cars for USAC competition, was unaware of USAC having this rule.

Levi contacted me and discussed the situation. I was not in favor of changing the rule because: 1. It was initially instituted for safety reasons; 2. It makes USAC cars non-standard from the other major sanctions; 3. It legalizes cars which have a competitive advantage over many of the current competitors and; 4. It rewards the teams who have been competing with an illegal chassis for the last three years and penalizes the teams who have complied with USAC's rules by forcing them to buy new chassis or accept diminished performance.

I understand the position of USAC not wanting to affect car counts (especially for this weekend)and I proposed to Levi that the rule remain as it was but to make a public announcement that beginning July 1, 2016, USAC would tech all chassis for the wall thickness in compliance with the rules and competitors found to be out of compliance would not be allowed to compete. USAC could also conduct the tech inspections beginning this weekend (without enforcing the rule) to let teams determine if their current chassis is legal.

I guess I should have saved my breath because obviously it did not make a bit of difference. Levi just wanted my blessing to change the rule. Now I am faced with the decision of whether I should have chassis built to take advantage of the new rule because it is a competitive advantage. Nothing like penalizing a team who complied with the rules and rewarding those which didn't!

As many years as I have been doing this I should expect nothing less from USAC!

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

Change a rule to make illegal cars legal?

Go out tonight on a softer RR and say it should be legal. Maybe they'll change it for you after the fact.

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

This explains why some cars are doing what they are doing on the racetrack compared to other cars. No names, but just watch and look how these different cars react while they are on the throttle...it is pretty obvious there is a big difference. Now everyone is asking the question,,,,do I buy a new car or not? Might be a big money maker for a chassis builder instead of a big money loss that it was going to be....

Do you think XXX Chinese .095 is as strong as American .083?

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

That brand has stated publicly on numerous occasions that their materials are 100% american produced chromoloy and aluminum that is shipped overseas for cutting, bending and welding.

Do you poeple really think .012 is really that big of a difference. Plus I know for a fact the some of the Wing cars that get checked and pass have slugs in those spots do make them pass. I have put them in there. Bottom rails are not why DRC's win a lot of races. Look at the teams that own them. The 53, 71p, 66, 40, 32. Look at the drivers in those cars there motor programs the crews that work on them. .012 on a bottom frame rail is not going to automatically park you in victory lane and if you think so you are A. Already beat and B. Just need something to complain about.

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

Hi Billy, long time since I've talked with you. I used to have a chart, that gave the per ft weights of the moly I was using in building my cars, and for the amount of feet, and the diff in a ft of weight, you could probably build one out of all .095, and not gain much over 5lbs in a whole car, the first one I built, I saved the butts off every stick of welding rod, every bit of tube that was not used, ie, every notch pc, everything, and the first car came up within 1 lb, of the total of all the tube I actually used, plus the filler rod, just had to do it, to see how accurate the final product came to what I started with, now is that worth all this hassle, you can look on AED's website, it has all the per ft weights of all the different sizes of moly, look it up for you own satisfaction. Bob

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

The fastest horsepower to weight ratio car is a Go-Cart. No suspension and not much flex. Indy car tubs are put in a jig that twists the assembly from the front wing mount to the rear motor mounts. With 10,000 lbs of force it should not flex .001 of an inch. They do not want to compute chassis flex into the grip equation, especially since it changes with time and wear.

DRC's have been built the same way since there first car in 03' 04'. It's not about weight bob. Atleast the most important front and rear cage uprights at .095. Can't say that about some of the others.

So you are saying no DRC has been checked by USAC or any other sanctioning body and found out of spec for standards set forth by rules regarding wall thickness? Or has USAC never checked wall thickness?

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

I didn't take Rob's post as complaining other than to say a rule that a team got caught not following in another division is no longer a rule.

He also said his old chassis held up well with the slightly lighter tubing.

Yeah, I see USAC's delima mid season. Suddenly you have to tell almost half of Indiana sprints they can no longer race. No brainer. Still isn't right the rule wasn't enforced to begin with.

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

It seems like nobody except Rob Hoffman knows when the World of Outlaw's Rules were inserted in the USAC Rule Book. No one now in the USAC office were aware of the rule change. No one that used to work there will own up to changing the rules. No one on the Sprint Competition Committee were aware of any discussion or possible rule change. No one on the sprint tech crew were aware of any rule change that they needed to check. No manufacturers were ever notified of any rule change. There was no date specified when this rule would be required on any new construction and there was no provision for grandfathering the over 200 sprint cars currently competing.

There has never been any incident where safety concerns might prompt a change. In my opinion and experience it is much more important to have a .095 front upright for the roll cage than a .095 bottom rail on non wing cars.

In the end this was just a mistake by someone in the USAC office who thought they were doing the right thing by blindly adopting the WOO Rules and not being aware of what was happening in the series they were getting paid to supervise.

Mike Devin

Not just DRC's. There is a hell of a lot of cars out there that do not follow the rules or the rules that appear out of nowhere. Every year usac would publish a rule book do they still? If they do when was the rule changed. And for you car owners out there, has USAC checked your car this year or any year?? I am betting is a big No. You would think that this would have been brought up at the comp meetings. I mean the car builder in question does go to thoses. He does ask questions. Hell he goes to lengths to make sure his cars are safer. Have you seen the cockpits and cages on his sprint cars and expecially his crown cars. He almost refused to sell me a car cause I didn't want an arm bar on the left side. The uprights are made of thicker wall tubing than what is "suggested" for the main reason of just pure driver safety. So why the ball busting over a car that is not woo legal i didnt know usac took the woo rulebook and "copy and pasted it". The car that won the championship and 14 usac races last year has .095 bottom rails. It's not like .083 is that huge advantage. If usac says .083 is okay for a motor plate upright it's damn sure good enough for a bottom rail. While my time at beast I did learn alot and I also saw rules made to fit cars and bodys not the other way around. No one has noticed a difference for 13 years now are we just supposed to make 13 years of cars illegal. Not going to happen. If you want to run a Woo race let Joe know I'm sure it will fit the rulebook of whatever series you want to run.

Well Mike beat me to it. Hahahaha

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

How many cars ran Gas City last night that couldn't pass this rule if checked?
"does not encroach upon an imaginary cylinder, 20 inches in diameter, extending through the top cockpit opening directly above the seat"

I looked at the pictures I shot at Bloomington's USAC race, and I have pictures of 7 cars that ran the Bloomington show, that could not pass this rule if enforced to the letter.

I don't get it. :15:

Might be a good idea to just read the rulebook once in a while.... Pretty clear to me..

Re: Usac: Usac sprint technical update: Car construction
 

Nice reply from a 7 post genius.

I was looking for a clarification from somebody with USAC, on what appears to be a new rule (since the original post from USAC says, "Date Effective: May 19, 2016") that basically seems to outlaw HALO bars. Below, is why I ask for clarification.

And since we are coming up on the Josh Burton Memorial this Friday at Bloomington Speedway, it's probably a good time to repost this too.

Here is an article I wrote at the request of Darlene Burton, Josh Burton's mother. It was published in Flat Out magazine’s 2015 February issue.

It is a plea for HALO bars, from a mother.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Those of us that have lost loved ones inevitably ask ourselves the same question, “could I have done anything to prevent it”.

The answer to that question is a resounding and emphatic, NO, at least 99.999% of the time!

Sadly, in our sport that seems to be how we learn the short comings of our designs, and also, how to improve them.
It is the same at every level in racing including Indy, NASCAR, World of Outlaw’s, USAC and every in racing sanction of every type.

I will not try and cite every example where safety improvements were made following a fatal accident.
However, the most of the widely known examples that instantly come to mind are probably, Dale Earnhardt Sr and Dan Wheldon.Seemingly and sadly, it takes a tragic loss in far too many cases to show us how and where we can improve on safety.

Which brings me to a recent phone call I received from Darlene Burton.Darlene is a dear friend, and the proud mother of Josh Burton.

Josh was lost in what can only be described as a tragic freak accident in May of 2013 at Bloomington Speedway.Since Josh’s death, Darlene has taken it upon herself, to attempt to try and help prevent another mother from having to go through the same heartbreaking loss of a child that she has endured for the past year and a half, and will endure forever.
Something that only those that have suffered this type of loss, can even begin to understand.

Josh’s accident in all honesty, just did not look to be any worse than your average sprint car flip. But the chain of events of his accident would prove to be fatal for Josh.
All because, as Josh’s car flipped, it rolled over on it’s side, exposing the top of his roll cage to oncoming race traffic.
Through absolutely no fault of his own, another driver’s front end came in contact with the top of Josh’s roll cage, and at such an angle, that the left front torsion bar tube and torsion arm, made an intrusion into the cage, far enough to make contact with Josh’s helmet, resulting in a fatal brain injury.

At any point, in the entire chain of events of the accident, had the timing played out any differently, even for just a split second, the outcome would likely have been no more than a damaged race car, and a driver walking unhappily back to the pit area to rebuild and race once again.

However, as is in most cases, we have no control of the timing in the chain of events of any accident. But there is one other thing that “might” have saved Josh Burton’s life that night.

Since the accident, Darlene has been on a one mother crusade, to convince drivers to install “HALO” bars in the tops of their roll cages.

A “HALO” bar simply fills in the wide open area directly above the drivers head, while still allowing plenty of room for entry, or a rapid escape if a need be. Most Chassis builders offer a “HALO" bar kit that you can install yourself, or you can have them welded in place by your chassis builder.Different chassis company’s have differing designs as far as height and length of the bars themselves.

Can anyone say with 100% certainty a “HALO” bar would have saved Josh Burton’s life, truthfully, no.But we can say if Josh had a “HALO” bar, his chances would have been far greater of climbing out of relatively otherwise intact sprint car, to repair it and race again.

Darlene herself, has offered to pay for the installation of “HALO” bars in some of her son’s friends and fellow racers sprint cars, with proceeds out of the The Josh Burton Memorial Fund. However, while some drivers did install the “HALO” bars, not one of them took her up on her offer to pay for them.

She has also tried to convince others to install a “HALO” bars, and honestly, she has meet with stiff resistance from some drivers, even though they fully understand her reasoning behind her heartfelt request.

She has also contacted USAC to speak directly to them about the pro’s and con’s of “HALO” bars, especially since USAC is strictly a non wing sanction.That meeting, has yet to take place at the time of this writing.

Darlene fully understands that not everyone is in agreement, that the “HALO” bars are for everyone. However, all that she is asking, is that you take a long hard look at what is at stake, and then make an educated decision for yourself.

There is a mighty big opening in the roll cages on some of today's sprint car frames. What are the chances that you could one day find yourself with the top of your roll cage exposed, facing oncoming race traffic, a fence post, or any other object, that might in a freak accident, find it’s way into your cockpit through that big opening above your head?

Who knows? But is it a chance you are willing to take?

Darlene Burton is simply asking you to consider the installation of a “HALO” bar, and at the small cost of $150.00-$250.00 is it really worth it to take that chance?

One thing I do know for a fact, there is no price on God’s green earth, that Darlene would not have gladly payed in hindsight, had anyone known before hand, what a 'HALO” bar might have been able to prevent.


Chris Judah

First off I don't want to get into a passing match with you, buti wasn't referring to the the halo bar.. I was referring to the lower frame rail... As it states in the 2016 rule book

MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF 4130 NORMALIZED TUBING
TOP RAILS 1 ½” x .095”, BOTTOM RAILS 1 3/8” x .095” or 1 ½” x .083”, ROLL CAGE UPRIGHTS 1 3/8” x .083”
ROLL CAGE CROSSMEMBER 1 ½” x .095” UPPER RAILS 1 3/8” X .083”
REAR END SAFETY BAR HIGHLY SUGGESTED 1” x .083
Seems the rules were changed to suit a chassis builder to me...
As I said read the rules....