Unstable Vehicles

[LarryC]

I decided to un-hijack the "Buying cars on Craigslist" thead and start a new thread on unstable vehicles.

See "Buying cars on Craigslist" starting on page 2, post #19 (http://www.sdsolo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=192&page=2) for backgroud on this discussion.

The discussion deals mainly with the interpretation of the following section of the Solo II rule:

"3.1 Unstable vehicles with a high center of gravity and a narrow track, including SUV’s, minivans, and 4WD pickups, must be excluded (e.g. Suzuki Samurai, Jeep CJ series, and GEO Tracker/Suzuki Sidekick). Extra caution should be exercised with non-traditional vehicles, e.g. trucks using racing slicks."

Let say I'm an event chair or a safety steward and I'm tasked to enforce Section 3.1 at its broadest interpretation, which is to ban ALL SUVs, minivans, 4WD pickups, and unstable vehicles with high center of gravity (CG) and narrow track. For the most part, identifying the three types of vehicles is easy with the exception of a few crossover cars.

The part that I have a hard time with is how to decide when a vehicle is unstable because of a high CG AND a narrow track. The narrow track part is easy because it's measurable. The height of CG is going to be much harder. That information is not readily available and is not easily determine at the event.

Even if the CG is available what ratio of track width vs. CG height do I use to determine if a vehicle is unstable? The Solo rule do not specific a ratio. If I'm going to ban a vehicle I should be able to show the owner the reason his vehicle is banned, not just because "I" think it's unstable. What if the vehicle had been modified and runs in a non-stock class. How much lowering of CG or widening of the track will make the car stable? Without a published ratio this part of the rule is going to be hard to enforce.

[woodrufj]

The part that I have a hard time with is how to decide when a vehicle is unstable because of a high CG AND a narrow track.

Even if the CG is available what ratio of track width vs. CG height do I use to determine if a vehicle is unstable? The Solo rule do not specific a ratio. If I'm going to ban a vehicle I should be able to show the owner the reason his vehicle is banned, not just because "I" think it's unstable.
Well this part of the rule is a safety interpretation, and I'd say we take the opinion of the safety steward of record as gospel. This may sound to unilateral, but most other safety calls work the same. When is it too windy to use umbrellas? When does course break up require a course deviation? When is a broken car far enough off course to continue racing? When the SSS says so.

Jay W
505/287 Dakota

[LarryC]

Let's look at the part of the rule that ban vehicles by type. That should be easy ... but is it fair.

Not all SUVs are designed alike. Here are some data from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's web site. The safecar.gov (http://www.safercar.gov/RollRatings2.cfm) web site list model year 2005 rollover ratings.

Here are the summary of the rollover chances:
SUVs - low of 12% to a high of 34%
Trucks - low of 15% to a high of 30%
Vans - low of 12% to a high of 29%
Cars - low of 7% to a high of 15%

Should we exclude SUV with a 12% chance of rollover while allowing cars with a 15% chance of rollover to compete? What percentage is safe?

I think it's time to update Section 3.1.

[bluethunder28]

As I said earlier, the SEB is working on it. They have a lot to do this year and it will take a little time. The SSC gave the SEB all the info they need to make a decision.

Give it some time.

[LarryC]

Well this part of the rule is a safety interpretation, and I'd say we take the opinion of the safety steward of record as gospel. This may sound to unilateral, but most other safety calls work the same. When is it too windy to use umbrellas? When does course break up require a course deviation? When is a broken car far enough off course to continue racing? When the SSS says so.

Jay W
505/287 Dakota

The examples you give are good examples of judgment calls make by safety steward at every event. But in those examples the safety steward can errors on the safe side by moving the course before it’s too broken up or have a car push way off the course to be out of harms way. No one is hurt by his actions.

But if the safety steward error on the safe side and ban a borderline vehicle then someone is hurt because that driver don't get to compete. What if the safety stewards don't agree on what is unstable? Should the driver show up at each event to see if the safety steward at the event will allow the car to run? Reasonable people on this forum are divided on borderline vehicles so why wouldn't the safety stewards. How does a safety steward backup his decision other then "I said so"?

[brian]

what if roll cages were put into these "high CG" vehicles. would they still be excluded then?

[mievil]

Probably if for no other reason than the possibility of it rolling over would be higher, causing the SCCA a possible insurance payout (assuming the insurance is good on vehicles, and not just medical :dunno: ). No different than a normal insurance company charging more due to someone driving a 4x4, simply because of that rare chance.

[cshodges]

A rollcage protects the occupants, but it does nothing for any course workers, light poles, fences, etc. in the path of the rolling vehicle. I don't think it would help a vehicle excluded for the chance of rollover to gain admission.

[mievil]

And that idea makes more sense than mine. :p

[brian]

an out of control vehicle does nothing for the course workers or it's surrounding environments. at least once a vehicle is rolling, it won't suddenly change direction.

[RandyC]

We do not want any incidents. Any.

(Not a response about a specific vehicle, just a note that regardless of the type of incident, we don't want to fill out incident reports for any reason).

[barkingspyder]

The vehicle that started this conversation has run in ~ 10 events so far? Would that not indicate that this particular vehicle has proven itself to be "stable"?

[magicman]

Seems like a good point to me!
Terry

[mievil]

After reading that thread, the whole thing sounds a bit odd to me. But has the gentleman who owns the specific vehicle in question actually filed anything with the SCCA to try to get permission to run? The only thing in question about CRV is the high center of gravity, which was clearly solved by the suspension. Wheelbase and narrow track are completely out of the question, as my girlfriend's CRV is wider and longer than my Focus. So since the indentifying issue, being ride-height/center of gravity, has been resolved, and the vehicle has been track proven (which may not be such a good thing to spout about :dunno: ) in my mind it should be allowed to participate.

So really, has the owner contacted the SCCA and pointed all of this out?

And whomever is stating that the vehicle is an SUV because "it's long like a station wagon" needs to laugh a little at themselves.

[lost won]

We do not want any incidents. Any.

(Not a response about a specific vehicle, just a note that regardless of the type of incident, we don't want to fill out incident reports for any reason).

I agree. I think you may have identified the goal, there, Randy.

Maybe we should also review the incident reports to see what we could do to reduce our chances of having to write more in the future. Like identifying other factors that result in a higher risk of incidents, for example. I know we have all our pet safety ideas - let's all be pro active in sharing them and discussing ways to get to a safer sport.

Safer cars. Safer drivers. Safer courses. Safer grids and paddocks. Safer workers. Safer spectators. It's all good.

I'll go first. Ban Z06s; especially the new 505 HP ones. Ban 60 year old drivers with 8 year old minds who drive Z06s like they were 19; Ban 19 year old drivers who drive like 60 year old drivers with 8 year old minds who drive Z06s like, like, where was I ??..... (jst a start) ;)

[MX5bob]

With the right mathematical formula, you could prove that Z06s were really 8-wheel steam locomotives, but it requires dividing by 0. :D

[brian]

what about the new ford explorers with Roll Stability Control, are they banned?

[cshodges]

If it's anything like the stability control systems on cars, then A) it'll hamper your times, so B) you'd shut it off to run, leaving C) the Explorer in the same boat as without it. :)

Lucky for me (well, lucky for most of us, really), there's no rule against cars with a tendency to spin.

[Bimota Guy]

an out of control vehicle does nothing for the course workers or it's surrounding environments. at least once a vehicle is rolling, it won't suddenly change direction.
:confused: I can't quite understand pointing out the "good side" of a vehicle rolling over.

[brian]

there isn't a good side. i didn't clarify my point and it isn't worth clarify, i douched it, unless if you enjoy senseless internet arguing.

[frosty]

I think his point is that rolling vehicles go in a straight line, and therefore are easier to dodge (as opposed to spinning cars, which are changing direction or might suddenly start turning the opposite way).

Still not good.

[RickRacer]

As I said earlier, the SEB is working on it. They have a lot to do this year and it will take a little time. The SSC gave the SEB all the info they need to make a decision.

Give it some time.

That's great, but it still doesn't answer the question at hand. Since there is a difference of opinion on what the rule actually means and since it is a safety issue I think it needs some priority on their agenda. I wonder how many vehicles classed as "SUVs" are running events around the country, mainly because most of us were simply unaware of the rule in the first place. My guess is those that are running have probably been established as "safe" by some local person.

When CalClub created a truck class and started allowing trucks to run we put a rule in our Supp Regs about a max measurement from the bottom of the driver's door to the ground (17"). Don't know if this is sufficient or not, but it's there and we've used it. This may have been before the SCCA rule under discussion existed.

In my opinion, the rule should provide guidelines and possibly ban specific vehicles in stock form, but leave it up to the event officials to determine if a vehicle is safe. In the 34 years I've been doing this, I've only recall seeing 3 roll overs, one of which was a truck that went on it's side, not all the way over. Seen lots more incidents with vehicles that passed tech yet had some mechanical failure that caused a problem. And of course, how many incidents have happended due to "driver error" or stupidity ("let's see how long I can keep my foot in it once I start to spin, I'm sure I can save it")?

[kb58]

The problem with allowing in one SUV is that it will be pointed at by the next SUV owner, "Well you let HIM run!" The trouble is, how can anyone know if the new SUV has suitable suspension changes.

I don't like the rule either since the SUV in question has obviously demonstrated it isn't going to roll. The trouble is that's not an acceptable method of testing if a vehicle should be allowed to run. If 10 SUVs are allowed in and two roll, is that a good testing method? No... so I reluctantly agree with the rules - no SUVs.

So can I run my Toyota 4x4 since I have a lower CG then SUVs? I would hope not.

[RandyC]

But the other part of that problem would still be, what constitutes an SUV? What the manufacturer calls it? Really?

[MX5bob]

As for Cal Club's 17-inch rule for the truck class, how does that work with 12" cones? :confused:

If the rule isn't about cone height, I'll turn my Miata back into a daily driver and put my 93 2wd Toyota pickup in SM2. I'm sure I can find a way to stuff a twin-turbo Supra motor in there. :D

[froggy47]

But the other part of that problem would still be, what constitutes an SUV? What the manufacturer calls it? Really?

I agree with Randy here, the manufacturer will call it whatever the heck will sell the suckers. Doesn't BMW call it's S*V's a Sports Activity Vehicle? So does that mean all the x5's are good to go?

:confused:

[woodrufj]

Doesn't BMW call it's S*V's a Sports Activity Vehicle? So does that mean all the x5's are good to go?Doesn't Hummer market their vehicles as "FU"Vs?

Oh, that was bad.

Jay W
505/287 Dakota

[cshodges]

Doesn't Hummer market their vehicles as "FU"Vs?
http://www.fuh2.com/ - Probably not office appropriate. :D

[frosty]

http://www.fuh2.com/ - Probably not office appropriate. :D

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA :cool:

[lost won]

And of course, how many incidents have happened due to "driver error" or stupidity ("let's see how long I can keep my foot in it once I start to spin, I'm sure I can save it")?

Exactly. And since I resemble that remark, I feel highly qualified to comment.

We should all be looking hard at ways to minimize incidents, which involves much more than the vehicle. So far, the vehicle rules seem to be a reasonable attempt to limit exposure to risk. They will be refined and rewritten as we go along. Let's just keep the larger picture in mind. The best auto-x car in the wrong hands can be trouble. I applaud anyone's reasonable attempts to improve safety and reduce risk. And I promise to try to stay on the course.....:o