New Score rollcage rules?

[sickrick]

Does anyone know anything about the new rollcage rules? I am getting anxious to start building but I dont know if I have to switch to 2 inch Tube. I called score and they said they would put the rules on the website soon, that was over three weeks ago. I am going to call again in the morning but I know I will probably get better info here.

[WannaB-class5]

Not to be a dick but please do a search....there is a large thread on it. "new roll bar rule"

[sickrick]

Jgunn, I have noticed that post before. I think it was time to start a new post related to the subject since the original point of the thread had long since been overlooked (not overlooked but not giving the answers I need either). At some point in the future I may be interested in: Racer unions, fire suits, Bill Savage Good/bad, Steve Sourpas' truck, ect, and all of the other worthy points of that thread, at this time I only want to know if anyone has any definite answers regarding the new rollcage rules.
__________________
Sickrick, and the Displaced Desert Racers.

[roach]

hey rick, pull up a chair and have a seat. i have been waiting for this answer for a couple of months!!!! dont know what they are doing over there at score, but they are holding me up as well!! wish someone would get it together at score tech (savage!).

[jeff]

And to clarify a few things... SCORE does have it together. You just have to ask nicely and when they try to blow you off the first 10 times you have to keep pushing and pushing... it took me one phone call and within 10 minutes I was FAX'd this information. Nothing terribly difficult about it!

http://performancelifts.com/rdc/CR33.pdf <--- CR33 Rule Cage Information

Aloha

[PBR]

aloha - please post it in pdf.

[jeff]

Way ahead of ya amigo! :) There are two other "sample" cage designs that I can scan in if you want... I didn't include them because the file was already getting a little big for the dial up crowd.

Aloha

[PBR]

so i kind of got bored with the last post on this subject so can someone help me out with older trucks... what is the deal with "grandfathering" in trucks that have raced score in the past??? do the trucks still need to be inspected??? do they need id tags???

[scottm]

The pdf link didn't work for me.

[jeff]

Ollie - Did you have any problem with the link?

ScottM - try right clicking and doing a SAVE AS on it. It works fine on my end...

Aloha

[scottm]

Thanks Jeff, it opened right up that time. The rules seem reasonable to me so I will build my s-10 accordingly. What about existing tt's?

[ACID_RAIN28]

Ollie - It says at the bottom that trucks built before jan 1 2006 MAY be required to be inspected every six months..... Basically anything built before that date is excluded.

[sickrick]

I am glad that they moved the date. I cannot understand in anyway, the reason to exclude dom mild steel from being used for rollcage tubing. Any one who knows anything about metal working will tell you that seamless DOM mild steel tubing is excellent at surviving major crashes, It gives and bends, absorbing impacts yet not cracking and breaking like cromoly can. At one time in nascar racing the cars were built so strong that upon impact with the wall alot of people were being killed by internal injuries due to the fact that the cars did not absorb enough of the impact.

I think that most of us have seen the results of a major crash with mild steel tubing and are aware of the amount that stuff can bend with out breaking tearing or cracking (all while absorbing impact). I firmly believe that cromoly tubing is far superior in most ways to mild steel, but i know that SCORE if they take some time to look the facts regarding DOM they will come to the conclusion that the use of cromoly tubing should be a choice and not a mandate.
I also believe that if SCORE truly is thinking about small time independent racers as i believe they are , they will come to the conclusion that mandating cromoly tubing is an expense not only in the building of the vehicle but in maintanence and accident survivability.

[mexracer10]

Well then if cromo is mandated then why half way down the first page where it list the weight of viehcle to the size tubing neded it says dom/4130/seamless?
This gives the impresion the dom could be used?
i dont know it seems that score tries really hard to make the rules as unclear and vauge as possable.

[ChuckH]

Jeff, could you post the other two sample cage designs also

Thanks

[jeff]

ChuckH - You bet...

http://performancelifts.com/rdc/CR33_2.pdf <--- Additional Cage Samples

Aloha

[Jkrell]

so which trucks require a b pilar? or is the "basic" all that is need on any truck regardless of weight.

[PBR]

Ollie - It says at the bottom that trucks built before jan 1 2006 MAY be required to be inspected every six months..... Basically anything built before that date is excluded.

this is what doesn't make sense... if the truck was built before 01.01.06 it may be required to be inspected every six months, but you are saying the opposite... that anything built before the date(01.01.06) is excluded...

i am really confused, i will try calling score today.

[TimHayosh]

Has anyone sought clarification of the apparent discrepancy in the definition of the materials? In the section titled "Material", it states the roll cage must be 4130 Chro-Mo. However, in the tubing size chart, DOM and Seamless (CDS?) are refered to.

Also, in the "Material" section, it states all bends must be mandrel type. This would eliminate all the common JD2, Pro-Tools, etc benders. These common benders are not mandrel. My understanding of a mandrel bender means that there is something inside the tube being bent to prevent the cross-section from ovalization.

Has anyone asked SCORE for clarification on this stuff?

(P.S.: Dye penetrant is misspelled.)

Inspection fees?

[sickrick]

The benders you mentioned are considered by most to be mandrel benders (external or following mandrel) true mandrel benders are thought by most to be the internal type (ball or shoe). I believe that this was mentioned to make sure that people are not building cages with flattened tube from using benders with out "following dies" or mandrels (i.e. pipe benders.)

[sickrick]

I just spoke with Bill Savage and he said that mild steel tubing in any form will not be allowed. He stated thet mild steel is not strong enough for rollcage tubing. He also stated that he has never seen cromoly tubing crack or break. I then mentioned some problems I have witnessed first hand with rollcage tubing, and he stated that they must have been welding related.
I know that everyone who has been racing for any length of time has seen cromoly tubing crack and or break. I remember a pro truck at crandon that had everything behind the axle break cleanly off the truck in a crash.
I am not saying that cromoly is dangerous but i do not believe mild steel is either, just different. I believe strongly that steel should be allowed in rollcage constuction as it has the ability to bend and deform with less chance of breaking. Bending and deforming in a crash is not a bad thing, it is the only way to disapate the energy of the crash. Again I think that the people making this decision should look at all of the charecteristics of the two types of materials (toughness, brittleness, fatique strength ect.).
I will be asking my crew chief to weigh in on this subject, he is a mechanical engineer with years of experience dealing with materials application.

[Justin]

Bill Savage said "he has never seen cromoly tubing crack or break?" I find very hard to believe. Im sure your quoting him way out of context.

[sickrick]

Bill Savage said "he has never seen cromoly tubing crack or break?" I find very hard to believe. Im sure your quoting him way out of context.
I told him i had seen cromoly tubing crack and break and his response was that it must have been weld related and that he had not seen that happen. I knew i should have recorded his exact statement. Believe me I have no reason to try and misquote or mislead any one relating to this subject. I have never met Bill Savage and have never raced SCORE and have no agenda other then trying to see if people agree that mild steel DOM tubing should should be allowed to be used in Rollcage construction. It actually doesn't affect me much as my truck will be finished before the deadline and I will be building it of mild steel DOM. In the interest of being fair I will call Bill again and see if I can get him to clarify his reasoning and I will then post his response here. Hopefully I can get him to fax me or maybe he will respond dirrectly to this posting. I also would like to say that the last thing I am trying to do is start contraversy, espeacially with Bill Savage, since he will be inspecting my truck when it is completed.

[elqdeasu]

Correct me if I'm wrong:

DOM is a manufacturing process which stands for Drawn Over Mandrel. It does not refer to any specific type of material. Mild steel DOM tubing exists as well as chromoly DOM tubing.

In school I was taught that any rollcage made out of chromoly must be heat treated to remove the stresses introduced by welding (from localized heat). I know this heat treated subject has been discussed here before. I don't know how many chassis builders actually heat treat chromoly cages or if anyone does at all. You'ld need a very big oven. But I've heard of it done before. Do NASCAR builders heat treat?

[TimHayosh]

It's interesting that the largest, most respected sanctioning body on the planet dis-allows 4130 in the construction of a rally car. I would be most interested to know the research that SCORE did to validate the exclusive use of 4130 and negate the use of Cold Drawn Seamless and DOM.

Here's the material selection table from the FIA rulebook:
http://www.timthedriver.com/webhost/FIA_MaterialData.jpg

Here's a link to the FIA rulebook on cages, seats, seatbelt, and other safety equipment: http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/848909206__AppJ_2004_Art_253.pdf

A minor note on the selection of 4130 as the sole acceptable material for off-road cars...Given that steel products are not getting any cheaper, it seems a foregone conclusion that SCORE will never see a new vehicle in MOST of their classes. To be sure, some people have the resources to build a 1/2-1600, a JeepSpeed, or even a class 11 out of 4130, but most don't. This one rule will ensure SCORE's future will only include the top-end classes. Maybe this is the goal.

Please don't misunderstand; I am 100% in favor of a safe race car! I just don't think 4130 is the single, magic bullet that can acheive that.

[PBR]

i just got off the phone with bill and he said that every vehicle will have to be inspected, nothing will be "grandfathered" in. so i asked him what is the purpose of inspecting a truck that has already raced for many years in score and if the truck is made of a smaller diameter tubing will it have to be changed??? his respose was no trucks are being outlawed, but they are checking everyones vehicles no matter what and he will have more details on the rule in the next week or so.

[PBR]

here is something that i don't think has been discussed yet...

since mdr goes by score rules, will they be putting this rule into effect also???

[Jerry Zaiden]

Here is another one for you guys.

DOM is a welded seamed tube drawn over mandrel. There are many ways you can buy DOM. Chromoly, mild, etc.
Seamless is a Cold drawn solid. DOM and seamless are two different things.

This is according to EMJ.

[phorensic]

Wow, OK, so SCORE says you can't use anything but 4130 (that's how I read the PDF as well). This means that my plans to build a 1.5" mild steel roll cage would never fly under their rulebook. Seems to me that most minitrucks are built with 1.5" cages, first of all. The new rule states 1.75x.120 for my weight range. Second of all, my cage needs to be 4130?? OMG, give me a break. You can design a plenty strong enough mild steel cage. In fact, I know a racer who built his entire truck with mild steel, including the a-arms, his name is Matt Helton. Seems to be holding up pretty well. As far as the whole brittleness issue, I totally agree, 4130 will absorb energy less and break first compared to a more compliant mild steel setup. WAJ.

Like stated, this is probably to make SCORE more of a high-end organization. I already never planned on racing SCORE, but this just seals the deal. Hopefully MDR can take this conversation into consideration and come out with a more logical/practical rule for their rulebook.

[BIG_FAT_LOSER]

May sound dumb but, How does one go about getting their vehicle inspected? I am planning on doing a SCORE race or two next year. Contact Savage?

[ChuckH]

SCCA ( if i remember the rules right !! ) and apparently FIM don't allow the use of 4130, things that make you go hmmm.

Funny how they don't know what the new rule is on checking pre 2006 race cars, the only fair thing to do is grandfather them in ( with regular inspections for cracks ) thats the way i interpreted the new rule ( rules should be clear and not ambiguous )

Maybe they should have run the new rules by RDC before they put them out ;) many brains are smarter than few., looks like a revision is due days after they came out.

[sickrick]

I am very glad to see that people are talking about this subject and I totally agree that many brains are smarter than few.
I think that there should be an option to use Mild steel Dom tubing, if comparable in strength. What I mean is that if 1.5 inch .120 wall cromoly tubing is the size that you need maybe instead you could be allowed to use mild steel DOM of a larger Diameter or wall thickness (that gives equal strength. That Idea would be fair to the racers and should satisfy the safety requirements that SCORE tech is after.
At one time in drag racing when cromoly first started to be used people asked if they could use a thinner wall tubing because it was of similar strength to the thicker wall mild steel they were replacing, and they allowed it. What I am asking for is the opposite of this and I believe also makes sense.
I think that if we honestly try to work with SCORE on this they will at least listen.

[WoodyW]

Rick, you are an optomist my friend...when it comes to rules Savage doesn't "listen". He tells you how it is. Or at least how it is on that particular day. Which may or may not be how it was...you get the point.

[sickrick]

I have dealt with a soda tech inspector before that was like that. (I hope SCORE is not like that). He disqualified our class 7 truck a few minutes before the race began for being 7lbs under weight (suprise inspection). we were not allowed to go to the pits a strap on some extra weight. We were also not listened to when we brought up the fact that the scales they were using were rated for errer at +Or- 1/2 percent (2800lbs x .005 =14lbs). This was especially rediculious because we were one of the slowest trucks in the field and were near last place in points.
Another time he got it into his mind that our truck had tubing in it that was to thin (probably why it was so slow). He made us drill a hole in it and stuck a depth mic in it a declared it: too thin and unfit to race. We then went back to the pits and cut out a pie shaped piece of the tubing and brought it back to have it measured again, were he put a real mic on it and measured 1.197 wall thickness and was once again declared illegal. Luckily a very wise assistant tech person insisted that he was being unreasonable and that all tubing measures a few thousands under. we were then allowed to race. This may have saved his life.

[roach]

damn, makes we want to stop racing and take up knitting from now on.

[sickrick]

I have just faxed the following to Bill Savage at Score Tech.

Open letter too Bill Savage and Score Tech

Over the last few weeks there has been a lot of discussion regarding the rule changes regarding rollcages.
At this point I believe most people have accepted the fact that larger diameter rollcage tubing is the new standard. What I think a lot of people are confused about is the inspection process regarding existing vehicles.

I have 6 questions regarding this:

1. When will old vehicles need to be inspected?
2. How often will this need to be done?
3. How much will it cost?
4. What is being inspected?
Cage design
Crack inspection.
Other?
5. Who will do the inspections?
6. Is there an appeal process if you do not agree with the inspection?


Also I believe that mild steel DOM tubing should be allowed as it is in all other forms of racing. I know you have stated you are opposed to this.

I have 5 questions regarding this:

1. Will you be willing to discuss this?
2. Will you think about allowing mild steel DOM if tubing of similar strength to cromoly is used (I.E. thicker wall/larger diameter)?
3. Will you consider allowing mild steel DOM on a case by case basis?
4. What was a deciding factor in dis-allowing mild steel DOM tubing?
5. Who was involved in the decision to dis-allow mild steel DOM tubing?

I will be posting this on Race-dezert.com, in the Shop section of the forum.

I would like to thank you for your time and hope that this helps people understand the process and reasoning behind the rule change.

Thank You,
Rick Snell
Office # 763 274 0552
Fax # 763 274 1709

[JESSE_at_TLT]

I'm not qualified to comment on the properties of these materials, but I thought this article (http://www.pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/PR-BV60/index1a.html) was really well-written. From my limited perspective, I don't understand the reasoning behind their decision.

What is the actual difference in price between Chrom-Moly and mild steel right now anyway?Troy Johnson was telling me that Chrom-Moly still isn't much over $5/ft, and that most of the price increases have been in mild steel (DOM and HREW) tubing. If mild steel isn't much of a value right now anyway, why not use Chrom-Moly?

[Bryan_D]

damn, makes we want to stop racing and take up knitting from now on.


Well Roach you should be getting pretty good at this with the broken foot and all. Try sewing, it might come in handy later in life.

[ZTFab]

I'm not qualified to comment on the properties of these materials, but I thought this article (http://www.pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/PR-BV60/index1a.html) was really well-written. From my limited perspective, I don't understand the reasoning behind their decision.

What is the actual difference in price between Chrom-Moly and mild steel right now anyway?Troy Johnson was telling me that Chrom-Moly still isn't much over $5/ft, and that most of the price increases have been in mild steel (DOM and HREW) tubing. If mild steel isn't much of a value right now anyway, why not use Chrom-Moly?


It really depends on what diameters and thicknesses you're talking about. Alloys (chro-mo) have never been "cheap" and the steel market in general seems to be out of hand all around. IMO, It seems that mild steels have gone up at a faster rate than the alloys, but everything has increased almost exponentially.....

It also depends on the quantities in which you buy steel...much like everything else, the more you buy, the more you can save. When it comes to building a new truck/buggy, you are talking about a lot of tubing...especially for the "weekend" builder and do-it-yourselfers, which seems to be one of the major concerns of this thread.....for the average chassis shop that may have multiple jobs requiring similar material, prices can still be reasonable if shopped around from various vendors. For the small shops and the at-home guys with limited resources for material, it can become overwhelmingly expensive.....

I've built many roll cages from NHRA, SCCA, Nascar, & SCORE and a majority of them (especially NASCAR) are all mild steel....hell, NASCAR allows the use of .095" HREW P&O for their entire roll cage.....never had a problem with one yet and those cars hit HARD when coming out of a corner and into a wall!! ....jm2c

[jeff]

Don't bother asking Sal for help this week... he's on a well deserved vacation. :)

Aloha

[sickrick]

I just got off the phone with a person at Bill Savages contact number and was told they did receive the fax and that Derek Collins was working on a response. I think that by the tone of the conversation that they are interested in answering the questions and that they are taking this matter seriously.
This is great to hear as I think it could have been easily misconstrued as a personal attack or something negative without constructive value. I would also like to point out that I think that working in tech or running it has to be one of the most difficult positions that a person could be in. I can not imagine being in charge of making and enforcing the rules, that will keep racing fair, safe and competitive for all. I would also like to say that I believe that the rule changes were made purely for the propose of increasing safety. Even though Bill Savage and the others at SCORE tech are not responsible for our safety; I am quite sure that every time someone is seriously hurt, they wonder if there was anything they could have done differently. This is a level of responsibility that I think very few of us could handle.

[ZTFab]

Thanks for helping to clarify what is going on by personally contacting SCORE....
I too have been waiting on a response before I begin building my new Tacoma. The response from them will help to dictate whether or not I build the truck for competitive use in their sanction....

and thank you for dealing with them in a very professional manner...I'm sure that has helped them (SCORE) to realize the severity of this situation and not look at it as a personal attack on anyone. I couldn't agree with you more about the difficulties that Tech personnel must have when it comes to making it safe, fun, and fair. Hopefully this will all get cleared up and nobody will have to take up knitting!!!! :D

[DUMP!]

Hi to all :D ,

My name is Derek Collins. I work for Bill Savage At SPD Products. I have been watching this site and with Bill’s help, I will try to answer some of your questions & address some of your concerns.

SickRick-

With regard to your posted questions:

1. When will old vehicles need to be inspected?

All vehicles, new or old will be required to have a “Mandatory” Annual Inspection if they are to be raced at any SCORE INTERNATIONAL event.
All inspections will be by appointment only. It will be the vehicle owner / crew chief’s responsibility to make that appointment. SCORE INTERNATIONAL will not be making the appointment for any participant.
All participants will have 12 months to have there inspection completed starting June 6, 2005 thru June 1, 2006. It is at the encouragement of the SCORE TECH office that you don’t wait until the last minute to schedule your appointment. If you wait until the last minute and there are no appointments available it will not be the SCORE TECH office’s responsibility to accommodate you.
You will not be permitted to race a vehicle built prior to Jan 2006 after June 1, 2006 if you fail to have your vehicles Mandatory Annual Inspection completed. The date that you have for your initial Mandatory Annual Inspection will be your anniversary date for the follow year’s Mandatory Annual Inspection and every year that follows, for as long as you continue to race.
If you have a vehicle that was built prior to Jan. 2006 sitting in storage and don’t intend to race it before June 1 2006, but you still want the option to race in the future. You must have the Mandatory Annual Inspection completed on your car.
You must present your vehicle built prior to Jan 2006 for Mandatory Annual Inspection each and every year to retain the option to race it. It must be in the SCORE TECH offices database by June 1 2006, that is the deadline. If you fail to have your Mandatory Annual Inspection performed on your vehicle built prior to Jan 2006 every year, it will be removed from the system. Any vehicle that is not in the database by June 1 2006 will be required to comply with the Jan 2006 roll cage rule specifications.
At your initial Mandatory Annual Inspection all cars will receive a none removable, none transferable tag, and as stated before, be logged into a vehicle inspection database so that in the future we can keep track of the race-to-race tech inspection for each car

2. How often will this need to be done?

For vehicles that are determined to comply with the Jan 2006 rules, there will be the afore mentioned Mandatory Annual Inspection. As stated above, this inspection will be required every year and will be on the anniversary of you initial inspection date.
For vehicles built before Jan 2006 and that are determined not to comply with the Jan 2006 rules, they will be subject to a Discretionary Inspection as deemed necessary by the SCORE TECH office. What that means is: If it has been witnessed by SCORE TECH OFFICALS, at pre or post race tech, that there is any question as to the safety of your vehicle, your vehicle could be subjected to a Discretionary Inspection.
Any vehicle involved in an accident, or roll over, or sustaining any kind of crash damage will be subjected to a Discretionary Inspection.
The SCORE TECH office will notify you if you are required to complete a Discretionary Inspection.

3. How much will it cost?

There’s always the money question??? We, here at the SCORE TECH office are working with Sal to determine a fair & amicable amount. What that means is: I don’t know, it has not been completely resolved.

4. What is being inspected?

First and foremost is the safety of the vehicle.

This is what is to be expected at your Mandatory Annual Inspection:

All teams will be required to present their cars in full race trim. This includes all tool bags spare parts & spare tires as it leaves the start line minus fuel. The car will be weighed to determine the minimum tube size as per the rule. Then the team will be required to remove all body parts & dismantle the car of all accessories that would get in the way of or be damaged by the die during the inspection process. The inspection will take approximately 2 hour plus the time it takes the team to disassemble & reassemble the car.
SCORE TECH will be looking at the design and weather or not it meats the criteria of the Jan 2006 rules.
SCORE TECH will check material thickness & diameter of all tubes covered in the CR33 Roll Cage rules.
SCORE TECH will be looking at the structural integrity of the cage, I.E. is there any crash damage? Are there any signs of repairs? If so, what is the quality of the repair? Has the vehicle been modified from the original manufacture? If so, what was the quality of the modification? Please bear in mind; this is only as it pertains to the roll cage structure.
On new cars we will be looking to see that all tube centerlines converge at the same point to insure a proper load dispersing intersection.
SCORE TECH will crack check using die penatrent all intersections of tubes covered in the CR33 Roll Cage rules.

5. Who will do the inspection?

SCORE TECH OFFICE: 2520 Fortune Way, Vista, California 92081. Number to call for an appointment 760 599-1013

6. Is there an appeal process if you do not agree with the inspection?

As with all tech / safety issues there are no appeals.


Statement made by Sickrick:

“Also I believe that mild steel DOM tubing should be allowed as it is in all other forms of racing. I know you have stated you are opposed to this”


With regard to this statement:

Mild steel vs. 4130, it is a big issue, no doubt. One of the deciding factors for the rule change in material was do to the fact that cars are getting heavier and faster. By way of better shock technology & the desire to out fit the vehicle with more spare parts, more spare tires & more fuel (i.e. bigger fuel cells) etc. SCORE TECH is trying to standardize the roll bar tube size. By including mild steel this would require two LBS / Tube Size scales. In the past the rules have been left open somewhat to self-misinterpretation. That is what has brought about this new rule. It has been said that the rules are vague. This is an attempt at making them a little clearer.

One thing everybody here has failed to recognize is that SCORE TECH is only mandating the use of 4130 on the tubes outlined by the “Basic Sample” drawing. You are free to use mild steel, or any other material for that matter, on the rest of the chassis. Don’t let anybody trick you by telling you that will not work. There is nothing wrong with blending 4130 with mild steel in the construction of the chassis. Case in point 1980’s era SCCA Trans Am cars are all built using 1.75 mild steel square tube for the lower chassis structure (arm rail down) with 1.75 4130 round tube welded atop for the roll structure, and they’ve been doing it for years.

As for the cost, in a typical Trophy Truck there is approximately 80 feet of tubing that the diameter and wall thickness is mandated by the CR33 Roll Cage rules. For smaller cars there will no doubt be less. For the sake of comparison we will use 1.75 diameter tube as we believe approx. 70% of the cars built after Jan 2006 will be using this size. A price quote dated April 8, 2005 from CALTIME METALS @ 714 892-3307 revealed that:

ASTM-A-513 1020/1026 DOM Mild Steel is $5.17 per foot for 1.75 X .120

MILT-6736 CDN 4130 Cold Drawn, Condition N, Airframe is $7.54 per foot for 1.75 X .120

That equates to a total of $413.60 for 80 foot of Mild Steel vs. $602.88 for 80 foot of 4130 for a difference of $189.28. You can’t convince me that cost is even an issue here.


In regard to the last section of questions: I think you’ll be able to find your answers in the above text


PBR-

There will be no Grandfathering. As this usually means that there is a predetermined amount of time that your vehicle will be eligible for. By instituting the inspection process your pre 2006 vehicle will be able to race as long as you pass the Mandatory Annual Inspection.


MEXRACER10-

DOM is not a type of tubing. It is a process used to make tubing. DOM stands for drawn over mandrel. There are many types of DOM tubing. Stainless, Copper, Mild Steel and believe it or not 4130 can all be processed as DOM. So when you see DOM in the SCORE rulebook it doesn’t necessarily mean Mild Steel.


JKRELL-

The B-pillar is the rear roll hoop as far as SCORE is concerned. SCORE does not require the extra tube some cars have to support the bend at the A-pillar/Roof tube intersection, but it is strongly recommended by the SCORE TECH office. As is the front window, roof diagonals & additional door bars shown in “Sample #3” & seen in most vehicles today. Yes, the “Basic Sample” drawing outlines what SCORE TECH mandates. The “Sample 1,2,3,” drawings in no way, is to be the design standard. They are only for reference and can be altered or changed to best suit your application.


TimHayosh-

The mandrel type bend rule was instituted years ago to prevent the use of muffler type benders that tend to crush and deform the tube into a bend. The most commonly used benders such as your JD2, Pro Tools, Hosfield etc. are perfectly acceptable so long as the integrity of the tube is not compromised at the bend. Some non-mandrel type benders tend to wrinkle tube on the inside of the bend if the tube happens to slip thru the dies during bending. This is also not acceptable.


I hope this helps, we at SCORE TECH are not out to make your life more difficult. We are only trying to make SCORE racing safer. No these changes might not suit you and we appoligize for that. A safer race car is what we are after!!! :D

Thanks You All, Derek Collins ( For Bill Savage)

[ChuckH]

It all sounds good to me except that cars old cars that miss a annual wont ever be able to race again without being brought up to 2006 rules ( semi serious rebuild)

Good overall explanation though....Thanks

[ZTFab]

....it seems to me that this process is going to be very similar to what NHRA requires for chassis certification. An appointment is made with an inspector and he/she checks for proper construction and tubing sizes. Thickness is checked with a sonic tester and any repairs made to the chassis may require a "mag" cert as well. I've been through these certification processes before and they aren't bad....
Even though it is the responsibility of every competitor to ensure their own safety, certain steps must be taken for minimum requirements of safety and enforcement of those rules is something that should be looked on as a benefit to all racers....I'm sure everyone at some point has seen a vehicle, official race vehicle or not, that is just down-right scary in it's construction and material selection....

Thanks for the explanation Derek....

Hey Roach, you can take back those knitting needles now..... :D

[sickrick]

Wow great response! I a glad that things are being handled so well by SCORE tech.
I still have 2 concerns regarding the rule change:
#1 Why disqualify a vehicle for missing one year of tech inspections? I am sure there is a reason you have decide to do this, but from my very limited perspective it seems as though you are using this rule to eliminate the older cars / smaller teams whos only option to race may be an older vehicle. Why does it hurt SCORE to let a car be recertified if it misses a year?
#2 Why will you not let mild steel DOM tubing of similar strength be used to consruct the rollcage? I cannot see any disadvantage to using; easier to weld, less prone to cracking, Mild steel Dom tubing if the modulus of elasticity is the same.
Modulus of Elasticity = Is the stress per unit area divided by stain per unit length, or to me and you: In identical shapes of tubing how much they resists bending.
My crew chief (Senior Mechanical Engineer) will be doing the calculations soon to give a comparable wall thickness of Mild Steel Dom to Cromoly .120 wall tubing given a set tubing size that will yeild the same "E" Moduleus of Elasticity.
Cost is not the issue for me personally it is the fact that I will not have to heat treat my welds and that I personally feel safer in a mild steel Dom cage.

[ZTFab]

Cost is not the issue for me personally it is the fact that I will not have to heat treat my welds and that I personally feel safer in a mild steel Dom cage.

Not to get off-topic of the thread but I think this is another area that may need to be addressed....
I think I read some discussion on the topic of heat-treating chro-mo in another thread but it didn't go into depth from what I remember....
This seems to be a touch and go subject with just about every chassis builder/welder I've ever talked to....
Most sanctions rules will read that if 4130 is used it must be "heat-treated" or "stress-relieved" at every weld joint....some sanctions require TIG welding on alloy steel and others say MIG or TIG is acceptable....
I'm definently not an Engineer or Certified Metallurgist....IMHO, heat-treating a cage or chassis would be damn near impossible and very costly for the size of the oven required. I know that stress relieving can be done with a Tempil-Stick and Oxy/acetylene.....but can proper Thermal stress relieving be achieved with a torch and a crayon to not make the heat-affected-zone even more brittle, especially when cooling in ambient air? ..how do determine the proper cooling rate?
I have never personally known or spoken to a chassis builder who has ever stress-relieved or heat treated a cage....I have followed the same principals and never had a problem with one yet. Maybe I've been wrong for following their advice or is stress-relieving not really necessary? And why is Mig welding alloys acceptable to some sanctions and not others?

As far as I'm concerned, allowing Mild steel would greatly reduce some questions, concerns, and myths. If stress-relieving is required on alloys, most independent builders probably don't know how to properly do this process or feel comfortable doing it and would much rather use mild steel. I still like to use chro-mo but would like some clarification on stress-relieving.....

[pphat]

Hey Derek,
I'm all with you on making race cars safe. But, I'm wondering if you could share some details behind the decision to move to 4130. Isn't mild steel approved for use in NASCAR and FIA? Just wondering why SCORE Tech decided to go w/ 4130 for the main tubes in the cage.

Especially given the huge popularity of MIG welding in fabrication of vehicles of many levels of the sport (Or is that gross misconception on my part?). While there are guidelines for safe MIG welding of 4130, TIG welding looks to be the more popular option.

Will MIG welding of the 4130 be legal? Will SCORE adopt guidelines for stress relieving 4130 MIG welds?

Thanks!
Patrick


Some basic info I dug up on mig welding 4130, including dealing w/ stress relieving the welds w/ a torch.

MIG Welding 4130 Chrome-Moly
By Galen White, welding engineer, Miller Electric Mfg. Co.
http://www.millerwelds.com/powerclick/powerclick_0307.html

Miller Motorsports: What settings to use when MIG welding Chrome-Moly:
http://www.millermotorsports.com/mboard/showthread.php?t=91&highlight=mig+4130

Miller Motorsports: MIG and 4130
http://www.millermotorsports.com/mboard/showthread.php?t=213&highlight=mig+4130

TIG WELD 4130!
The Lincoln Electric Company,
http://www.lincolnelectric.com/knowledge/articles/content/chrome-moly.asp

[ZTFab]

[QUOTE=pphat]

Some basic info I dug up on mig welding 4130, including dealing w/ stress relieving the welds w/ a torch.

QUOTE]

Within these four articles are many of the contradictions I'm talking about....some say you can MIG weld 4130, others say to never MIG, while another says only sometimes....
And again, some say to heat treat but only if it was MIG welded and others say to heat treat no matter what but have varying temps and filler materials for best results..... :confused: WTF!!...

And no offense to you Patrick....I'm with you on trying to figure out what is acceptable...

[mfs]

seams pretty stright forward to me, mig or tig weld, tig is perfered sand of scale & clean with aceatone. make sure tube is a least 70 degrees, stress releaving not critical up to .120 thick. do not use 4130 rod in less heat treating. if stress releaving heat weld joint to 900-1200 degrees w/ temp stick mark 1" from joint. right?

[ZTFab]

seams pretty stright forward to me, mig or tig weld, tig is perfered sand of scale & clean with aceatone. make sure tube is a least 70 degrees, stress releaving not critical up to .120 thick. do not use 4130 rod in less heat treating. if stress releaving heat weld joint to 900-1200 degrees w/ temp stick mark 1" from joint. right?

It's not that I don't understand what they are saying, it's the multitude of contradictions I see and hear.....on paper the Titanic was a great idea and it only had enough life rafts for about 1/3 of the people on board.......I don't believe everything I hear, read, or see on TV......My point is that from real world experience I've found that stress-relieving seems to not be considered a critical step by a lot of builders....I'm hoping that some of the more experienced builders and SCORE will contribute to this subject....

And about the stress relieving not being critical for materials below .120"????
That sounds more backwards than anything in my opinion....increasing the energy input to the weld slows heating and cooling rates everywhere and heats more of the material to a higher temp. which leads to a larger weld and a larger heat affected zone but reduces "shocking" of the parent metal, allowing it to cool at a slower rate and not become as brittle. I may have that theory wrong and if I do, I hope someone can correct me.....

With SCORE mandating Chro-Mo for basic cage structures, stress-relieving is another question that could use some clarification.....

[partybarge_pilot]

I told him i had seen cromoly tubing crack and break and his response was that it must have been weld related and that he had not seen that happen. I knew i should have recorded his exact statement. Believe me I have no reason to try and misquote or mislead any one relating to this subject. I have never met Bill Savage and have never raced SCORE and have no agenda other then trying to see if people agree that mild steel DOM tubing should should be allowed to be used in Rollcage construction. It actually doesn't affect me much as my truck will be finished before the deadline and I will be building it of mild steel DOM. In the interest of being fair I will call Bill again and see if I can get him to clarify his reasoning and I will then post his response here. Hopefully I can get him to fax me or maybe he will respond dirrectly to this posting. I also would like to say that the last thing I am trying to do is start contraversy, espeacially with Bill Savage, since he will be inspecting my truck when it is completed.


We have delt with Bill before, You should always record every convesation you have with him as what He says is OK today might not be OK tommorow.

As for the roll bar rule. Our current truck which has been raced for years and just survived a roll over with fyling colors is soon to be illegal?

The new chassis we are working on will have to be scraped?

How are Pro-trucks legal for anything? Or is this Bill's revenge on Ivan?

I have nothing agianst making the sport safer, I would just like the rules and decisions made buy someone without a serious conflict of interest.

If the whole point of this is saving lives and making it a safer race, Putting proximity beacons on the bikes and cars and keeping the spectators back from the course a little would save more lives than the roll bar rule. If I'm not mistaken, this is where most of the fatalitys ocur.

[mfs]

{quote**And about the stress relieving not being critical for materials below .120"????
That sounds more backwards than anything in my opinion....increasing the energy input to the weld slows heating and cooling rates everywhere and heats more of the material to a higher temp. which leads to a larger weld and a larger heat affected zone but reduces "shocking" of the parent metal, allowing it to cool at a slower rate and not become as brittle. I may have that theory wrong and if I do, I hope someone can correct me.....

is all about how hot the metal gets.the thicker steel doesnt get as hot. alot of airplane frames are gas welded because it stress releaves the metal when you are welding it. tig welds heat afeted zone is small, in a way mig is better because heat afted zone is larger, less stress in the joint. metal moves more (or trys to move, ) when its cooling after being heated up. this is where the stress is.you know when your holdin a tube and your buddy tacks it, the tube pulls that way when the tack cools.so when weld all the way around its pulling every way (stress)inless the hole joint gets hot at the same time.

[pphat]

And no offense to you Patrick....I'm with you on trying to figure out what is acceptable...

None taken at all... I tossed those links out there to see what all the fabricators here on RD might have to say... I figured miller and lincoln's guidelines were a good place to start!

[DUMP!]

Hello,

Before I say anything I’d like to thank those of you who have had POSITIVE feedback and input to this topic. To those of you that haven’t, I’m sorry but you can’t please all the people all the time.


That having been said, I’d like to make a clarification to my earlier post with regard to the statement that read. “You must present your vehicle built prior to Jan 2006 for Mandatory Annual Inspection each and every year to retain the option to race it.” This statement was my error in understanding what Bill was trying to explain. To clarify: You still need to have your vehicle’s (built prior to Jan 2006) Mandatory Annual Inspection preformed prior to June 2006 to get it logged into the SCORE TECH data-base. As long as it is in the data-base, if you miss your annual inspection the following year you can still compete with the vehicle as long as you call and make an appointment and have it re-inspected prior to the next time that you intend to compete. If your car is not in the SCORE TECH data-base by June 2006 it will be deemed not to comply and will not be allowed to compete. This is the only way we can insure that somebody does not try to build a new car to the old rule and say that it is an “OLD” car.


I'd like to add, that no one at SCORE TECH is saying that with proper engineering you wouldn't be able to build a roll cage that is just as strong as the "Basic Sample" drawing out of a smaller tube size. However, the fact of the matter is, the majority of the vehicles being built are NOT by professional builders they are being built by amatuers at home in there garage. Because SCORE TECH is not in the business of engineering your car for you we privide only the bare minimum in requirments for the Basic Roll Cage. We know that it is only a starting point and that many more tubes are required to complete the chassis & we leave that to the individual builder. The three additional "Sample" drawings provided with the "Basic Sample" are only ment as suggestive, they are in know way to be thought of as the design standard.


The following are some answers and remarks to some of the posts made in response to my last post. You will find that some of the questions and remarks that this post is directed toward may not be in this thread because there are two threads I posted my last post to. The first was in the “General Discussion” forum. The second was in the “Shop” forum. From now on I will only be posting in the “Shop” forum with regard to this issue.


Byrdman 4/09/05 11:51

I think if you take a closer look at what has been posted you will find that there is no mention of the word “illegal”. This rule change does NOT make any current race vehicle illegal. The only sticky part is that if you are currently building a car it must be finished and raced at least once by Jan 2006 after Jan 2006 all NEW cars will have to conform to the Jan 2006 rules.

sickrick 4/09/05 12:06

Thanks for your POSITIVE response

1. Why disqualify a vehicle for missing one year of tech inspections? That is a great question. I think you will find your answer in the above text.
2. Why will you not let mild steel DOM tubing of similar strength be used to construct the roll cage? Because it is harder to verify the quality / type of mild steel used.
When you order 4130 you know its 4130. There are only two grades of 4130, Mil Spec & Commercial Grade, Both of witch are CDSR (Cold Drawn Stress Relieved). When you call to order mild steel unless you are very specific about what you order you don’t really know what you are getting. Have you ever welded mild steel and had it undercut more on one piece than the last piece that was from a different lot. That is what we are talking about. The quality of the material is more consistent with 4130. Kind of like going to the tool store and asking for a Crescent Wrench and the guy gives you a cheap Chinese made adjustable wrench and calls it a Crescent Wrench. This is the kind of variable we are trying to eliminate.

FABRICATOR 4/09/05 13:28

Thanks for your POSITIVE response

1. So the deadline for initial inspection of a current car or truck is June 1, 2006, right? Yes
2. Is there any existing rules or ideas on blending of different sized tubing, such as a 2” cage resting on or blending into a 1.75 chassis? No, however if you do try to blend the new chassis rules into an existing vehicle the modifications must comply with the “Basic Sample” drawing. What that means is: That the tubes that form the four corners of the roll cage all the way to the floor, as well as the tubes that run from front to back (the door bar, or arm rail as commonly referred to) will all need to be the same diameter and wall thickness as what is outlined for the vehicle’s weight as per the rule. This would make welding a new cage atop an old car likely not within the rules unless the four vertical tubes that form the corners of the cage all the way to the floor and the arm rails are of the same size and type.

ZTFab 4/09/05 13:32

In the 2003 – 2006 SCORE rule book on page 29 within the paragraph headed “Material” there is a sentence that says “All welded intersections (of the roll cage) should be stress relieved by flame annealing.” I doubt that many people took notice of the suggestion and I would further guess, that fewer people actually took the time to investigate and / or perform this simple operation. Flame stress relieving is performed just as described by mfs 4/09/05 23:34. “Heat weld joint to 900-1200 degrees w/ temp stick mark 1” from joint.” Having stated that, I will tell you that in 20 years of racecar fab. I’ve never thought to perform the operation and have also never seen anyone else perform the operation. That is probably why Bill deleted it from the most current set of rules posted elsewhere in this thread. I don’t believe that stress relieving the welds are necessary and I don’t think Bill (SCORE TECH) will be requiring something that there is no way to check. The truth of the matter is stress relieving the welds on 4130 tubing came from the FAA years ago to cover “Homebuilt” aircraft. When guys would use Oxy-Acetylene gas welding and 4130 rod to fix or build their airframes. Today with the advances in welding rod technology there is less need to worry about flame stress relieving. I think most people will agree we don’t use 4130 rod on any thing that is T.I.G. welded and I don’t believe that you can get a spool of 4130 wire for your M.I.G. machine, although I could be wrong about that. Everyone should be using an Ox-weld 65 equivalent like ER70S-2 to T.I.G. weld 4130 on non heat-treated parts, I.E. chassis components. You can also use the same rod on heat-treated parts, however the weld will not be as strong. It is recommended that ER80S-B6 or 502 be used for all heat-treated parts such as wishbones, trailing arms etc. because it will end up as strong as the parent material after heat-treating. 502 rod is also highly recommended for welding dis-similar materials, like 4130 to Mild Steel. If you talk to some of the educated (certified) welders out there (of witch I’m not) that have experience with the typical “Pipe Fitters” weld we call “Double Pass” or “Weave Welding”. They might tell you that by running the second pass over the “Root” pass this will achieve two things. The first is the addition of more material into the joint. The second is that it actually re-aligns the molecular structure of the weld thus serving as a stress-relieving component to the intersection. I don’t know if that is true, as I said, my welding education consists of the 20 years experience I have & no more.

Pphat 4/09/05 14:36

1. Why SCORE Tech decided to go only w/ 4130 for the main tubes in the cage? See response to sickrick’s question #2.
2. Will M.I.G. welding of 4130 be legal? Yes
3. Will SCORE adopt guidelines for stress relieving 4130 M.I.G. welds? No
I have never heard of there being any different process use to M.I.G. weld 4130 as apposed to Mild Steel. I have to say though; my experience is with T.I.G. welding. I have been involved with projects that have use M.I.G. welding extensively and don’t recall any special preparations taken to weld them. Case in point: myself and one other guy built the chassis of the pre runner that is owned by Mark Post, back in 1998. The guy I was working with did all the welding. It was all M.I.G. welded 4130. Mark still flogs that truck on a regular basis and I’ve never heard of any reports that the chassis welding was an issue. There are many if not all Buggy manufactures that have also been M.I.G. welding their chassis for years with out any trouble other then maybe the occasional weld that lacked a little penetration.

Stephen 4/09/05 15:06

You bring up an interesting point:

1.What if you live in the middle of the country (This case, Colorado) and you have you vehicle inspected in February of 2006 but don’t make it back to a race before March or April of the following year? Will I need to make a special trip only to have my vehicle’s Annual Inspection? You will find your answer in the above Clarification, I apologize for the misinformation.
2. Does this (Annual Inspection) mean (that) we don’t need to do pre-race inspections? No, all vehicles will still need to go thru pre and post race tech inspections.

5racer 4/09/05 16:48

Are you going to wait until you have a death related to cage failure before you do something about it??? If more people took the race-to-race prep of their car (as it seems you might) more seriously then we might not be where we are. If you sat at the finish line of the last Primm race, watched the number of cars cross the finish line as we did, that had sustained as much crack / cage damage as the cars did, one even finishing the race with a jack handle welded into the car where the front cross tube had broken completely out of the chassis, then maybe you could understand. And if you think someone is lining their pockets, that is a very narrow minded misconception, especially in light of the fact that an amount has not yet been determined. The fee will take into account the cost of chemicals, the cost of hiring someone to perform the operation, what class the car is racing in etc, etc. You really should limit your statements to what you have facts to back them up with. Oh ya, you can send your application for SCORE TECH DIRECTOR to Sal Fish at SCORE INTERNATIONAL.

Partybarge_pilot 4/10/05 11:05

I think that if you where to examine the rules posted earlier in this thread as well as my earlier post you will see that the new rules say absolutely nothing in regard to making an vehicle “illegal”. As long as your vehicle is determined to be safe at a Mandatory Annual Inspection you will be aloud to compete. As for your new vehicle, you have until Jan 2006 to build & race it at least once. If you are unable to finish and compete in at least one race before Jan 2006 then, yes, it will need to comply with the new rules.

In closing, I would like to say as I did at the start that I will know longer be posting this in two forums. You can look for additional post from me on this topic in the “Shop” forum.

Thank You, Derek Collins

[ZTFab]

Thanks for the clarification Derek...
I have found that stress relieving was a widely mis-used and/or misunderstood term and I'm glad that it will be deleted from the rule book. I too am not a "certified" welder but have plenty of experience, and like many fabricators have formed my own theories, beliefs, and practices from many trials and errors.....I definently don't know everything and will never claim to.....

[elcaprerunner]

Derek, just to get one thing clarified here. I realize I probably already know the answer but I want to be 100% sure...

If the car is completed and inspected BEFORE Jan. 2006, but is NOT raced before Jan. 2006, will it still qualify to race AFTER Jan. 2006?

[Byrdman]

Thank You for clarifing that our trucks won't become illegal. Please let us know when you guys are to start doing this so we all can make appointments and set aside the time and fee's. Thank You again.

[Byrdman]

One other question: When you say "raced before Jan.06, does that only mean raced at SCORE, or anywhere? The reason I'm asking is hopefully my first race @ SCORE will be Laughlin 06, but I've been running this truck for 2 years know. Thanks.

[Jerry Zaiden]

DUMP!,

I talked to Savage today and he said as long as it is built and raced by JUNE 2006. Is this true?

[sickrick]

Derek, thanks for the update. I am glad to see that there is sound reasoning behind the idea to go to only 4130 tubing; I have trouble even getting an explanation from some manufacturers about the differences in mild steel DOM tubing. I think that this problem relating to the quality of mild steel DOM tubing could be overcome easily, with simple documentation requirements (receipts/purchase order from qualified vendors).
I am very glad to hear that vehicles that miss a yearly inspection will not be removed from competition.
I would like to thank everyone for keeping this conversation professional and on subject. I would also like to once again thank SCORE TECH for there professionalism regarding this issue. I believe that Score could solve a lot of these types of problems relating to rule changes by simply keeping the off-road racers informed, maybe by press releases or web forum postings. I have been watching the SCORE website and have noticed the class three questionnaire relating to the proposed rule changes in that class. I noticed that the subject was also allowed to get going on a real negative track; and I believe that the questionnaire was a great way to bring about a positive change in the way the situation is being perceived / handled. I hope in the future that SCORE will bring racers in at the beginning of a proposed rule change; instead of reacting to the aftermath.

[WannaB-class5]

I have an idea. I will buy Patten Steel and when you call me, just say you want "SCORE" metal. That way everyone gets the same matal and I will only mark it up 300%. ;-) and I am glad to see this being worked out. Thanks SCORE.

[sickrick]

Derek, I am seeking clarification on a couple of points.
If I build my new truck to the new rules will it still need to be inspected every year or is only that for vehicles built to the old rules?
What will inspection cost?
Is the subject of mild steel DOM tubing still open to discussion?

[DUMP!]

Hello to all,

A follow up to answer your questions:

Class7s 4/11/05 15:05

There is currently ongoing open discussion between Sal & Bill regarding the “Licensing”, if you will, of other chassis builders to do inspections. This will probably be in the Las Vegas & Phoenix areas. As of yet there have been no details worked out or finalized. Bill has stated that this will require the purchase (if they don’t already have what is required) of approx. $8-10,000 in tools and equipment to be able to properly perform the inspections.

Inspections will be required on a yearly basis regardless of the date the vehicle was built .

Elcaprerunner 4/11/05 18:55

After a re-consideration by Bill, yes, you are right. If your new car is completed and “inspected” BEFORE Jan. 2006 but NOT raced before Jan. 2006 it will qualify to be raced after Jan. 2006

Byrdman 4/11/05 19:50

You can call to make your appointments starting May 1 2005. The number to call is: 760 599-1013

Jerry / Camburg 4/11/05 19:53

I’m sorry, either Bill misspoke or you misunderstood. Never the less, the cut off for new vehicles built to the old rules has always been Jan. 2006. One thing Bill has changed, as stated elsewhere in this post is, that your new vehicle (that is built to the old rules) will only need to be inspected NOT raced before Jan. 2006

Nikal 4/11/05 20:57

Unless pre Jan 2006 cars are inspected before June 2006 they will be considered not to meet the rules. We have to be able to draw the line somewhere in time for older vehicles.

01_el_Tiburon 4/11/05 21:47

Don’t be so hasty, as Jeff pointed out, none of this is in writing, YET. There is one change with regard to the statement that reads, “If you are currently building a car it must be finished and raced at least once by Jan. 2006. After Jan. 2006 all new cars will have to conform to Jan. 2006 rules”. This will be changed to read, “If you are currently building a car it must be finished and inspected (not raced at least once) by Jan. 2006

Jeepspeeder 4/12/05 9:10

I would want to have had my vehicles inspection completed as well if I was planning on racing in a SCORE event in the future. This is not optional. It’s just like having to have seat belts and a fuel cell.

Jimpat 4/13/05 10:45

Thanks for the Positive words!

Sickrick 4/14/05 7:35

Yes, all vehicles will be required to have an inspection on a yearly bases. The date of your initial inspection will be your anniversary date for subsequent inspections their after.

Sorry, as far as Bill is concerned, the DOM issue is closed.


Thank You, Derek Collins

[Brandon_Charley]

It seems odd to me that DUMP! did't address the question of inspection cost at all.

[redline]

It seems odd to me that DUMP! did't address the question of inspection cost at all.

If you would reread both of his post you would see he did a couple times saying that they dont know. they are figuing out how much it would cost to buy the equipment and hire a person to do it full time.
I definatley think this new rule will be safer but its gonna suck to be in a mini truck with 2" tubing.

[ChuckH]

Just crunching some numbers.

4 hr's to inspect per car, approx 350 cars to be inspected, figure a 40 hr work week.

Thats 35 weeks ( 9 months) to inspect all the cars, so if you call them june 2006 to schedule they could possibly take as long as april 2007 to get around to you.

Better make those appointments as soon as you can, things should be better the second year, that 1st year will have a huge back log... they really need more inspectors in other towns like Vegas.

[DUMP!]

ChuckH, Please read the posts, don't skim. This was in my last post!!!!

There is currently ongoing open discussion between Sal & Bill regarding the “Licensing”, if you will, of other chassis builders to do inspections. This will probably be in the Las Vegas & Phoenix areas. As of yet there have been no details worked out or finalized. Bill has stated that this will require the purchase (if they don’t already have what is required) of approx. $8-10,000 in tools and equipment to be able to properly perform the inspections.

And NO the $8-10,000 is not a typo, Scales, Ultrasonic test tool (tube thickness), Chemical tester (tube material type) & possably a portable magniflux machine (for those painted cars) could be some of the equipment required.

Thanks Derek Collins

[sickrick]

Crack check your chassis for very little cash!!
Require all required tubes to be welded shut with 1/8th inch female pipe fittings soldered or welded to them, then simply fill the tube with air and check for leaks with a little soap and water, or put a air guage on it and see if the pressure drops over time.
This would be a even safer option as it could be done at every pre-race tech inspection. I know that someone is going to claim that the die/magnaflux inspection is superior because it finds the cracks before the are all the way thru the tube, but this will only be done once per year and cracks could go undetected for many months.
This is an idea that would be easy to implement and cheap and easy to do. It would also make racing even safer as everyone would be inclined to simply preform this test themselves as part of prep.

[sickrick]

Quote from Derek "Sorry, as far as Bill is concerned, the DOM issue is closed."
I think that the only thing closed regarding DOM tubing is Bills mind.
This is an important decision that the racers have to live with, we should be able to decide between 4130 or DOM. All other forms of racing allow it and some do not allow 4130 at all.
Cost is not my concern with this rule change. I simply would rather tumble thru the desert in a rollcage that can give and deform with out breaking. I would feel much safer next to bent or damage tubing then the jagged edge of a piece of 4130.

The increase in tubing size is all that is needed to add an additional level of safety.
Crack checking once a year as is currently proposed is a joke and will do nothing to make racing safer on a race to race basis. This is simply a hassle for SCORE and the Racers.

SCORE has two goals (we know of) with this rule change:
Make racing safer.
Stop new cars being built to the old rules.
Both are fair and reasonable.
The first can be easily accomplished with 2 simple changes: The change to larger diameter rollcage tubing (DOM or 4130) and require that all mandatory rollcage tubing be airtight (as described in a earlier post).
The second can be accomplished easily with; simple photo documentation of your old chassis and a chassis tag attached to it. SCORE could easily do that at pre-race tech inspections for a year or you could set up an appointment to have your vehicle inspected at SCORE Tech.. SCORE could charge a reasonable fee for this inspection and the documentation that would need to go with.

This is a fair and simple cheap solution that works, no fancy crack testing once per year, no hiring extra people to do the inspections, no increase in potential liability, no older vehicles being excluded that are still safe to race. no additional trips to SCORE Tech for inspections, no additional SCORE approved inspectors in other cities. almost no trouble at all.

[sickrick]

It sounds to me that your just as opposed to 4130 as Bill is to DOM. So where is the middle ground????? You've read the threads on this topic. Now what will happen????? We'll be back to people building substandard cars that crack apart in less than a season of races. Kind of like what we saw with some of the cars at the last Primm race.

Derek

Items in red are quotes from Derek.

Derek thanks for responding! I am not opposed to 4130 at all, I am opposed to the fact that I cannot choose for myself.
Where is the middle ground? It is in the fact that you have increased the mandatory tubing size.
How much **** do you think Score Tech will get if we tell people, "Ya you can build your 3500 pound car out of DOM as long as it is 2" X .120"? Use the same table you proposed earlier for car weight to tubing diameter/thickness, and simply allow people to build using DOM if they choose.
By the way, that is what the old rule calls out for and people couldn't adhear to it. If they can't follow the rules then they can't race.
We'll be back to people building substandard cars that crack apart in less than a season of races. Kind of like what we saw with some of the cars at the last Primm race.
This is easiest of all, you have already addressed this problem in the rule changes. If the car suffers damage to the required tubes it is subject to re-inspection. If you use the air filled tubing suggestion the cracks will be easy to find before or after every race. As you said (the cars cracked apart at the last Primm race), An inspection at the beginning of the season would have done little, as the cracks were not noticed until that race.

I am not trying to start stuff with you guys, I am just the kind of person who only likes change when it is needed and supported by facts.

I do agree that vehicles are getting heavier and faster and that some changes are needed.
I truly believe that the switch to larger tubing is the only thing that needs to be done to address this issue (along with simple crack inspection).
There is no scientific evidence that 4130 tubing provides a larger margine of safety then DOM. The idea of re-inspecting damaged cars is the right way to go about dealing with the cars that are having the troubles with cracking and poor design. The idea of air tight cages will greatly simplify crack inspection and turn a process that takes skilled train people and turns it into a simple go-no-go operation that can be easily accomplished at each pre-race Tech inspection.

As far as the comment about Bill being closed minded, that is simply to keep the conversation going. When someone says they are not willing to discuss something I have found that a little prodding can get things going again. I would also like to say that I have been talking with my crew chief (senior mechanical engineer) for many hours about this and we can not come up with any facts to say that 4130 tubing provides an increased level of saftey over DOM tubing. In fact we are more convinced than ever that both forms of tubing have there own individual strenghts and weeknesses.

[FlyHiFlyLo7]

I like the part whereas Bill Savage gets to inspect 350-500 cars a year at $500 to $1000 each. That's only $250,000.00 to $500,000.00 pure profit a year. Bill is a great guy and I surly will be more than happy to give him some of my extra money. Do you guys think Bill would be the type to throw 1 or 2 hundred thousand dollars back into the point fund? Or just keep it all for himself?

[partybarge_pilot]

So if Bill wants to certify these things as safe, will he be liable if they fail? Do any seperate shops want to take on this liability?

[movindirt]

Originally Posted by DUMP!
It sounds to me that your just as opposed to 4130 as Bill is to DOM. So where is the middle ground????? You've read the threads on this topic. Now what will happen????? We'll be back to people building substandard cars that crack apart in less than a season of races. Kind of like what we saw with some of the cars at the last Primm race.

Derek


Okay can someone please explain to me why Derek keeps refering to cars falling apart at Primm as the reason for this rule change? This makes no sense since he admits that ALL of the cars were made from 4130, yet that is the material they are requiring to be used.. I am soooooooo confused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jerry Zaiden]

So if Bill wants to certify these things as safe, will he be liable if they fail? Do any seperate shops want to take on this liability?



YES!

If a rule mandates a way that is the end and an engineer proves it to be a bad design then yes now you have a bad design in the eye of the courts, SCORE is in California.
I say SCORE has a panel of 3 true engineers come up with there own designs. Then they come together and have the top builders look at them and if they feel that the designs make sense with the builders experience of what really works then that should be the “suggested” way to build the cage. Then each racer signs his life away and takes his own responsibility.
I talked to Bill about this whole thing and he had a closed mind about it. I said a 1 3/4" cage with door bars, pillar support, x bracing in the back of the cab and roof, would be much stronger than a 2" cage like his basic design. He said I won’t argue that, then I said so it is stronger he said yes. Then I said why not give out a good design as a base starting point not the basic design as the base starting point. He said firm; 2" and the basic design! This does not make any sense to me at all. His reason for this is he says people are building race cars in there garage at home with no skill. Now how many cars are like this?
I have also talked to Sal at SCORE he is a great guy and is trying to come up with a safe solution for us racers. He is not out to make more money off of us from this at all so don't make SCORE and Sal out to be the bad guy, they really are our friend. They put on these races for us and if we want to race them we need to go by there rules.
The only problem I have as a builder is if you know there is a better way and the top builders all want it the same way, why not listen? I just see Bill Savage as kind of closed minded and I feel he can open up a little and listen to the builders. Bill seams like a good guy I just think he should go with the reality here. A good DESIGN, and choice of materials.
After talking to a few people who own new cars, all built way out of the 2" tube rule. They all think this new rule is not the way to go. They all state DESIGN is the way not just more tube! This is my whole point if you are going to do it do it the best way not just with a patch.
How well is a 2" basic design cage going to hold up in a 6000 lb TT crashing at 80 mph? Now how well does the same truck with an 1.750 cage hold up with door bars, pillar support, and X bracing in the roof and back of the cab?
Guys please do not bash SCORE or Bill keep this on the level of design and let’s try to get to a good solution here.

[Ramsey_ElWardani]

Okay can someone please explain to me why Derek keeps refering to cars falling apart at Primm as the reason for this rule change? This makes no sense since he admits that ALL of the cars were made from 4130, yet that is the material they are requiring to be used.. I am soooooooo confused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's very simple. It's called a "Dicktangle".


The three cars I know of were all JIMCO's. Two class 10's and a 12. All are many years old with thousands of race miles on them and multiple race victories and class championships. One was involved in a major rollover at Primm with substantial damage but no serious injuries. That car is driven very hard and has been rolled and repaired several times. The other car won Class 10 and was second overall behind Pflueger. JIMCO has had an excellent record of safety and results. There is always more to the story than meet the eye.

[Byrdman]

Remember, until we get an offical SCORE publication on this, with the price for inspection, the exact dates, and what exactly is going on, this is all speculation. Alot of racers don't use the net as much as us weirdo's and I'm sure SCORE will have an officall news release on the matter when it's nailed down. Then you voice your opinion to Uncle Sal. I caught myself getting all upset and then I realized what comes out of Savages shop is not Officall unless Sal backs it and posts somekind of press release, which has not happened yet. Good luck

[FlyHiFlyLo7]

Remember, until we get an offical SCORE publication on this, with the price for inspection, the exact dates, and what exactly is going on, this is all speculation. Alot of racers don't use the net as much as us weirdo's and I'm sure SCORE will have an officall news release on the matter when it's nailed down. Then you voice your opinion to Uncle Sal. I caught myself getting all upset and then I realized what comes out of Savages shop is not Officall unless Sal backs it and posts somekind of press release, which has not happened yet. Good luck

Many Guys have talked to Savage personally in the last week and it's the real deal. 600.00-1200.00 for inspections. At his shop! Call Savage he will tell you the same.

SCORE TECH OFFICE: 2520 Fortune Way, Vista, California 92081. Number to call for an appointment 760 599-1013

Gee I wish I had a gig whereas I could take several hundred guys that what to race every year... bend them over a barrel and pull a grand out of their wallet EVERY F'N YEAR!!!

[WannaB-class5]

Jerry said "YES!" to the question will Bill be liable if someone gets hurt. The answer is probably NO. One of the three defenses to and suit (tort law) that involves negligence is "Assumption of Risk" and it is a complete defence. In fact the example in many law books to explain Assumption of Risk uses race car drivers. Secondly use common sense. How many times has NASCAR gone bankrupt from being sued? (never) SCORE is no different. This is also why firemen can't sue when they get hurt and why Marines dont get to sue when they get shot.

[Byrdman]

If thats the case, will SCORE send out a mailer to all it's members informing them of the inspections? Hopefully so. In my case- $600-$1200 is not in my budget for an inspection. More like $150. Look out BITD- here we come!!!!!

[desertracer]

Can you call and make your appointment now or is it still the May 1 date? Will the car have to be stripped or what will need to be done to make it ready for inspection?

[phorensic]

One thing that I have been wondering - will a cracked joint/weld always leak air if you used the air pressure test? I can imagine a crack forming while the chassis is in a load that stretches the crack apart, and then when at rest the crack is back in compression--effectively sealing the crack and making it air-tight even though it still exists. I'm no engineer, but I could imagine other types of cracks that might not leak internal air pressure out either.

[FlyHiFlyLo7]

Can you call and make your appointment now or is it still the May 1 date? Will the car have to be stripped or what will need to be done to make it ready for inspection?


Your car must be in complete running condition. Spares, belts seats, glass, everything.

Inspection is a "4-6+ hour process" and shop rate is $150.00 HR. The part I like is after you load up your race car and fill it up your tow vehicle with gas, take a day off work, bring your buddy with you, buy the both of you breakfast and lunch.

Then Bill so eloquently says:

"This, this and this doesn't pass.

Fix it and bring it back.

Or I can get you fixed up now for $150.00 an hour."

Kind of like Alachmed Sheik Zeeeb at the local Smog station.

[fishd00d]

Just a quick question, does NASCAR or SCCA or WRC or Dakar make you PAY to get your vehicale inspected? I dont know the answer thats why I am asking. Cause it sounds asnine to me that you would have to pay to get it inspected, that should be covered in the cost of entry fee if you ask me...

[desertracer]

Your car must be in complete running condition. Spares, belts seats, glass, everything.

Inspection is a "4-6+ hour process" and shop rate is $150.00 HR. The part I like is after you load up your race car and fill it up your tow vehicle with gas, take a day off work, bring your buddy with you, buy the both of you breakfast and lunch.

Then Bill so eloquently says:

"This, this and this doesn't pass.

Fix it and bring it back.

Or I can get you fixed up now for $150.00 an hour."

Kind of like Alachmed Sheik Zeeeb at the local Smog station.

Do you know if you will be given a grace period to repair the race car and bring it back to them, this is going to turn into a scheduling nightmere...first you barely get a time slot for the inital inspection then the time to try to get back in line for a re-check.

[JrSyko]

Also, does this mean that you don't have to wait in the ridiculously long lines at tech since your car has already been "teched"?

[racer951]

Just a quick question, does NASCAR or SCCA or WRC or Dakar make you PAY to get your vehicale inspected? I dont know the answer thats why I am asking. Cause it sounds asnine to me that you would have to pay to get it inspected, that should be covered in the cost of entry fee if you ask me...

When they charge 300/125 for insurance/land use fees at Primm when SNORE charges 95/100 for the same course, SOMETHING should be free!

Travis - I thought someone asked that in the other thread and Bill's guy said you still need to get it teched because it's only a structural tech. Who's to say you don't change the fuel cell or belts around after the shop tech?

[Martin]

Yes nascar makes the teams pay for tech inspections $900.00 a race I think.

Johnny Sauter was DQ'ed at last weeekends Busch race. I watched an interview with his car owner and he was pissed because he had to pay $900.00 for a pre race tech inspection and passed pre tech but not post tech.

I can fill his pain

[FlyHiFlyLo7]

Do you know if you will be given a grace period to repair the race car and bring it back to them, this is going to turn into a scheduling nightmere...first you barely get a time slot for the inital inspection then the time to try to get back in line for a re-check.


No grace period. It's first come first serve!

[elcaprerunner]

You are supposed to have your vehicle 100% ready (not prepped, but all spares, tools, other safety items, engine/trans, suspension parts, everything on the car) for a race when you bring it down there so they can weigh it, I emailed DUMP about this cause I didn't think I'd have what I'm building ready in time, all I will pretty much have is a rollcage and maybe some susension components.

Also, with the air pressure crack checking method, what about chassis that are built with pilot holes drilled in tubing junctions of the rollcage (purpose being that heat expands and that hole lets the heat flow and not build up pressure inside the tube you are welding on and sealing up). I've seen this done on a few top vehicles but not so much in the rollcage as it is other parts of the car, but I would assume they do it in the rollcage as well but I may be mistaken, someone please correct me if I'm wrong. But the question is how do you pressure test that when it was originally built with not much pressure inside to begin with?

[movindirt]

Also, with the air pressure crack checking method, what about chassis that are built with pilot holes drilled in tubing junctions of the rollcage (purpose being that heat expands and that hole lets the heat flow and not build up pressure inside the tube you are welding on and sealing up). I've seen this done on a few top vehicles but not so much in the rollcage as it is other parts of the car, but I would assume they do it in the rollcage as well but I may be mistaken, someone please correct me if I'm wrong. But the question is how do you pressure test that when it was originally built with not much pressure inside to begin with?

They drill those hole for TIG welding. This is so they can finish the weld that joins the tubes off correctly and they you weld up the hole or holes. Any good fab guy will want to keep all the important tubes sealed to cut down on internal corrosion.

Tony

[elcaprerunner]

I see, I get what you are saying :) It's an old picture, but Dave_G posted one a long time ago of a bumper that had broken off of the Herbst TT that was chromo (appeared the metal had failed and not the weld) and it had a hole drilled in the center of the junction, where the tubes met at a 90* the hole was in the center of where the tube joined, so once the joint was all welded up there was no possible way to weld that hole up because its inside, I figure that was done so you are not able to see it. The expanding heat and pressure just goes into the next tube so its not all trapped inside of just one tube. Then again this was only a bumper.

[movindirt]

Yes nascar makes the teams pay for tech inspections $900.00 a race I think.

Johnny Sauter was DQ'ed at last weeekends Busch race. I watched an interview with his car owner and he was pissed because he had to pay $900.00 for a pre race tech inspection and passed pre tech but not post tech.

I can fill his pain

Martin,

I think anyone would gladly pay $900 for an inspection at every race if the prize money in SCORE was the same as NASCAR. One can dream :) . I didn't see it but the post tech deal sounds bogus though....

It's an old picture, but Dave_G posted one a long time ago of a bumper that had broken off of the Herbst TT that was chromo (appeared the metal had failed and not the weld) and it had a hole drilled in the center of the junction, where the tubes met at a 90* the hole was in the center of where the tube joined, so once the joint was all welded up there was no possible way to weld that hole up because its inside

Well actual to do the air test you would need holes going from tube to tube so it would create one big chamber. Good place to hide your NOS :D . Opps wrong racing :eek: . Anyhow you can and for reasons you pointed out would leave vent holes inside intesections no matter where they are located.

Tony

[Ramsey_ElWardani]

What if they had an inspection and no one showed up?

You all need to quit speculating and wait to see what the official printed rules amount to. If you are really concerned, email Bill Savage and Sal Fish and tell him about. I’m sure he would appreciate the input. Count on Sal to make the right business decision, he is not going to alienate his bread and butter customers.

[sickrick]

I am by no means speculating, I am trying put out possible solutions or suggest changes while they are still easy to make.
It will be even harder to change things after the rules are printed.
I also agree that Sal will make the right decision. I am confident that SCORE and Sal will not simply overlook the implications that the changes will have; if they are presented with facts and ideas that will help produce a desirable outcome.

[5racer]

They drill those hole for TIG welding. This is so they can finish the weld that joins the tubes off correctly and they you weld up the hole or holes. Any good fab guy will want to keep all the important tubes sealed to cut down on internal corrosion.


you are 100% right if you dont vent the tube it will blow out on you make a mess of your electrode and usually happens when your standing on your head inside the car welding like a pretzel .

[DUMP!]

SickRick,

First I'd like to say that I have no problem with you posting my PM's that I send to you if you think it will further this discussion. However, You should make note that a PM is just that, a Personal Measage and that they reflect my personal thoughts on the subject. In no way should they be thought of as Bill's & or SCORE TECH's thoughts on the same subjects. I do show Bill what I've sent to people with regard to the PM's, but, unlike my regular posts, not usually until after I've sent them.

That having been said, I'll tell you that I have no problem with the use of DOM as long as it is of a simular bend yeild. So yes, it will need to be of either, A) thicker wall, or B) bigger diameter, or both, I don't know. One thing I'm sure of is that Bill has made his mind up & no matter how much it is discussed here in this forum (He doesn't look at this stuff, he only hears or sees what we tell or show him) he's unlikely to change his mind. At this point you would be better served to try to get the ear of Sal becuase ultimately, Bill does work for Sal.

With regard to your PSI test, that would be great for new cars (that really don't have a problem with cracks because they are new) but I don't beleive it would work for old cars because as discussed in the thread many chassis are vented internaly (every chassis I've ever built has been internally vented tube to tube) thus the intire chassis would be subject to the PSI not just the areas in question so that would put those teams at a disadvantage when it was time to inspect the chassis for cracks. Also I don't believe that doing this type of check at pre race tech is a good idea either. Take you for example, If you drive to Mexico from ELK RIVER, MIN. (what is that about 1800-2000 miles) and you present your car for inspection at pre race tech and it fails the PSI test how happy are you going to be. You cannot tell people the day before a race that they cannot race because their car didn't pass a test. Besides that, SCORE can't devote that much time to each car at a pre race tech inspection, at some point the racer needs to be responsable for his own car. Ya, the yearly inspection is not the perfect sinario, but it's a start. With that in place maybe people will be more attentive to crack checking their own cars.

Thanks, Derek

[subrunner]

Something that occured to me right away about the psi test as a problem. Who's to say that you dont just put the air fitting into a tube that's sealed at both ends. That way unless that 1 tube cracked you'd never fail. It'd be too easy to cheat the psi test.

[dadunc205x]

easy, just put fittings at both ends of the cage, equalize the pressure in all of them, then fill up one end only(check the psi) and then go to the other end of the cage and check the psi there.

[movindirt]

SickRick,

First I'd like to say that I have no problem with you posting my PM's that I send to you if you think it will further this discussion. However, You should make note that a PM is just that, a Personal Measage and that they reflect my personal thoughts on the subject. In no way should they be thought of as Bill's & or SCORE TECH's thoughts on the same subjects. I do show Bill what I've sent to people with regard to the PM's, but, unlike my regular posts, not usually until after I've sent them.

That having been said, I'll tell you that I have no problem with the use of DOM as long as it is of a simular bend yeild. So yes, it will need to be of either, A) thicker wall, or B) bigger diameter, or both, I don't know. One thing I'm sure of is that Bill has made his mind up & no matter how much it is discussed here in this forum (He doesn't look at this stuff, he only hears or sees what we tell or show him) he's unlikely to change his mind. At this point you would be better served to try to get the ear of Sal becuase ultimately, Bill does work for Sal.

With regard to your PSI test, that would be great for new cars (that really don't have a problem with cracks because they are new) but I don't beleive it would work for old cars because as discussed in the thread many chassis are vented internaly (every chassis I've ever built has been internally vented tube to tube) thus the intire chassis would be subject to the PSI not just the areas in question so that would put those teams at a disadvantage when it was time to inspect the chassis for cracks. Also I don't believe that doing this type of check at pre race tech is a good idea either. Take you for example, If you drive to Mexico from ELK RIVER, MIN. (what is that about 1800-2000 miles) and you present your car for inspection at pre race tech and it fails the PSI test how happy are you going to be. You cannot tell people the day before a race that they cannot race because their car didn't pass a test. Besides that, SCORE can't devote that much time to each car at a pre race tech inspection, at some point the racer needs to be responsable for his own car. Ya, the yearly inspection is not the perfect sinario, but it's a start. With that in place maybe people will be more attentive to crack checking their own cars.

Thanks, Derek

Derek,

Why would the PSI test not work on old cars? What does internal venting have to due with it? If the cage didn't have internal vents then actually the test would not work as subrunner has pointed out. And subrunner the one who cheats like that will end up DEAD one day.

Why would checking more of the chassis be a disadvantage? Do cracks in other parts of a chassis present an advantage? Well Derek do they? And why would someone like sickrick who travels so far to come to a race not just do the check before he left home to make sure all is good. I mean he knows to put the belts in the truck, amber light on etc. etc . etc...... I would hope that anyone racing in SCORE has access to compressed air. Like you said people should be checking their own cars. And yes maybe checking all the cars at each race might be a little hard to do. Or do you think people could just have the air already in the chassis so that all the tech person has to due is look at a guage?

Do you and other builders you know leave the chassis vented to the outside world? What happens to the inside of those tubes after a race in Mexico? I am sure you know that almost every race in Mexico involves WATER. Have you ever thought of what this does if the water gets inside the tubes of the chassis? This to me is a REAL safety concern as it is hard to see how bad the rust is inside tubing. If there is an easy inexpensive way of seeing the amount of rust inside a completed chassis without cutting it apart please enlighten me.

I don't think anyone racing SCORE is against making things safer. I think everyone just wants the rules to be based on facts and not 1 persons opion. If I was Bill I would not want that either. I think it would be in SCORE's best interest to get some outside help on this one. And I am sure Sal will make the right desision.

Tony

[TORR1]

This is going to be kind of a long post because of quotes I am using, but bear with me. Just for some background, I am young, dont have a lot of experience w/SCORE racing YET! and have been going to Cal Poly for a Mechanical Engineering degree for a while. The quotes from Derek (DUMP!) are italicized.


I'd like to add, that no one at SCORE TECH is saying that with proper engineering you wouldn't be able to build a roll cage that is just as strong as the "Basic Sample" drawing out of a smaller tube size. However, the fact of the matter is, the majority of the vehicles being built are NOT by professional builders they are being built by amatuers at home in there garage. Because SCORE TECH is not in the business of engineering your car for you we privide only the bare minimum in requirments for the Basic Roll Cage. We know that it is only a starting point and that many more tubes are required to complete the chassis & we leave that to the individual builder. The three additional "Sample" drawings provided with the "Basic Sample" are only ment as suggestive, they are in know way to be thought of as the design standard.


I feel that you are almost contradicting yourself here, putting a band aid on a shattered bone. Why not inspect cages from an engineering standpoint, not only a material standpoint. If 1 3/4 is used on a truck that would be in a 2" weight class, yet the cage is fully welded and gusseted with more than enough bracing, why not allow it? I realize it gets sticky when you have a cage that is borderline, but would you realistically allow someone with a class 8 truck using your "basic" cage design out of 2" 4130 race? To me is seems very insuficcient. You should follow FIA, NASCAR, NHRA and SCCAs lead in my opinion on this one. Why not make a cage design for class 8 trucks, one for class 9 cars, and so on that is realistically the minimum strength required to support the body structure at a roll of that particular vehicles top speed? Only a few basic calculations are nessecarry (acceleration of vehicle, stength of cross secion of cage structure...). This seems to make more sense than giving a suggested example of cage designs and then pretty much letting joe blow race on a poorly welded cage of that minimum design.



2. Why will you not let mild steel DOM tubing of similar strength be used to construct the roll cage? Because it is harder to verify the quality / type of mild steel used.
When you order 4130 you know its 4130. There are only two grades of 4130, Mil Spec & Commercial Grade, Both of witch are CDSR (Cold Drawn Stress Relieved). When you call to order mild steel unless you are very specific about what you order you don’t really know what you are getting. Have you ever welded mild steel and had it undercut more on one piece than the last piece that was from a different lot. That is what we are talking about. The quality of the material is more consistent with 4130. Kind of like going to the tool store and asking for a Crescent Wrench and the guy gives you a cheap Chinese made adjustable wrench and calls it a Crescent Wrench. This is the kind of variable we are trying to eliminate.

How do you verify that it is 4130? Couldnt a similar process be used to check for a high quality mild steel as opposed to say sprinkler pipe? What testing equipment would you be using. Looking at the overall cage design and then the wall thickness and composition of the tubing used can really tell the story of the absolute strength of the cage. Most commerically available (all to my knowledge) is shipped class N (normalized) meaning that it is heat treated and stress relieved. The ultimate tensile strength of 4130 drops dramatically with the introduction of localized heating (welding). A good mild steel does not exhibit this dramatic change. Here are the stregths of 4130 after different processes ( WQ&T refers to water quenched and tempered).
Temper Tensile strength(PSI) Yield Strength (PSI)
Annealed 80,000 50,000
Normalized 90,000 70,000
WQ&T 128,000 113,000
As you can see, the different tempering processes DRAMATICALLY change the overall strength of the material. 4130 has alloying elements that help it produce its qualities. These alloys also give it it's heat process charateristics. Several grades of carbon steel(mild steel) exist. The grades I am familiar with are 1010, 1018, 1020, 1028. The last two digit represent the carbon content of the steel as a 10th of a percent. Therefore, 1028 has .28% carbon which is slightly less than 4130 CroMo. The more carbon, the harder and stronger the steel. However, too much carbon causes the steel to become brittle. While 4130 has a ultimate strength greater than that of 1020(most common mild steel) it is also much more brittle. Therefore a 4130 structure will deform less than a similar one of 1020 after an impact, but more of the impact energy is absorbed by 1020. Also, if the impact is enough to fracture 4130 the fracture is much more violent than the fracture of 1020. Moral of the story here is that a non normalized 4130 structure does not have a huge advantage over non-normalized 1020 or any 10XX metal. I am just wondering if SCORE has taken this into account and realizes the differences in the properties of these metals.




In the 2003 – 2006 SCORE rule book on page 29 within the paragraph headed “Material” there is a sentence that says “All welded intersections (of the roll cage) should be stress relieved by flame annealing.” I doubt that many people took notice of the suggestion and I would further guess, that fewer people actually took the time to investigate and / or perform this simple operation. Flame stress relieving is performed just as described by mfs 4/09/05 23:34. “Heat weld joint to 900-1200 degrees w/ temp stick mark 1” from joint.” Having stated that, I will tell you that in 20 years of racecar fab. I’ve never thought to perform the operation and have also never seen anyone else perform the operation. That is probably why Bill deleted it from the most current set of rules posted elsewhere in this thread. I don’t believe that stress relieving the welds are necessary and I don’t think Bill (SCORE TECH) will be requiring something that there is no way to check. The truth of the matter is stress relieving the welds on 4130 tubing came from the FAA years ago to cover “Homebuilt” aircraft. When guys would use Oxy-Acetylene gas welding and 4130 rod to fix or build their airframes. Today with the advances in welding rod technology there is less need to worry about flame stress relieving. I think most people will agree we don’t use 4130 rod on any thing that is T.I.G. welded and I don’t believe that you can get a spool of 4130 wire for your M.I.G. machine, although I could be wrong about that. Everyone should be using an Ox-weld 65 equivalent like ER70S-2 to T.I.G. weld 4130 on non heat-treated parts, I.E. chassis components. You can also use the same rod on heat-treated parts, however the weld will not be as strong. It is recommended that ER80S-B6 or 502 be used for all heat-treated parts such as wishbones, trailing arms etc. because it will end up as strong as the parent material after heat-treating. 502 rod is also highly recommended for welding dis-similar materials, like 4130 to Mild Steel. If you talk to some of the educated (certified) welders out there (of witch I’m not) that have experience with the typical “Pipe Fitters” weld we call “Double Pass” or “Weave Welding”. They might tell you that by running the second pass over the “Root” pass this will achieve two things. The first is the addition of more material into the joint. The second is that it actually re-aligns the molecular structure of the weld thus serving as a stress-relieving component to the intersection. I don’t know if that is true, as I said, my welding education consists of the 20 years experience I have & no more.



My main problem with this statement is that the rules require heat treatment of welded joins (which I agree with) yet you blatanly state that this has never been enforced. Why not? Why make rules that are not enforced. Enforcing this alone could prevent many structure failures.

Thanks for letting me get all of this off of my chest. I will post up a more detailed comparison of 10XX vs. 4130 steel later when I get off work and have acess to my engineering books.

[sickrick]

Derek, I agree that PMs should remain that way (bad form on my part). That is why I addressed my last one to you only.
I agree I would be very upset if after driving from MN to Mexico I was turned away at Tech because my chassis would not hold air. That is why I simply would fill my chassis with air before I left and make sure there were no cracks.
Crack checking this way has been used for many years by people with experimental aircraft that are using very thin 4130 tubing for the airframe, Acrobatic bi-planes are sometimes outfitted with a tiny pressure gauge visible to the pilot to let him know if his plane has suffered a crack while doing stunts. The airplane builders say that cracks that are not visible with out a magnifying glass immediately show up as a loss in pressure. The airframes are filled with between 100/200 psi of air, co2 or nitrogen.
As far as the older chassis that are internally vented, I do not see the problem as it would be so easy to see where the tubing was cracked you could simply weld up any problem areas until the entire chassis held air. It would be so simple to do a pre-race crack check that I do not think anyone would go to Tech with out doing this simple check first.

I am going to make this even easier by saying I do not think crack checking is necessary.
Instead you should simply tag the cars that are having the problems (cracking, falling apart, major crash damage) for re-inspection.
I think we all can agree that cracks can propagate almost instantly in a lot of cases and that yearly crack inspections will do nothing to stop this.

As far as eliminating DOM as a viable building material; Bill is wrong! He may have theories why this is the right move but with out facts to back it up he is simply stating opinion. I didn’t like it when my mom said “because I said so” and I don’t think it works any better in this case.

All in all the rule changes will have little effect on me as my plans are to race Baja this year and the rules will not be in place by then. I will build out of DOM using 2 inch tubing .120 thick. The truck will weigh around 4000 lbs and I think most would agree this will provide an adequate amount of protection if the cage is designed correctly.

At this point I feel I have been heard and that I have made my points. I hope that the people who race with SCORE will continue to work towards a fair conclusion. I believe that the goals of the rule change (safer vehicles and not allowing new cars to be built to the old rules) can be accomplished without the hassle and expense of yearly crack inspections and still allow people to build using DOM if they see fit.

Thank you,
Rick Snell
P/S Moving dirt. You really grasp how easy this form of crack checking would be. Glad to see It makes sense to some people. I asked the question regarding tube rust to one of the airplane builders and he said that it does not seem to be a problem as he has seen several old mild steel air frames that are from the 40s and although they are not airtight they have almost no corrosion on the inside. The conclusion he had is that the rust cant form without the free flow of air in and out of the tubing or that oils left inside the tube from manufacture prevents it from rusting. He says that people who fear rust simply use co2 or nitrogen.

[jamoffroad]

i think the 4130 thing is now all about EGO , FIA, Nascar both spend more on safety testing then SCORE spends on there hole years race season so why not listen to the true experts in safety ? The hole testing thing is also suspect because they have no checks or appeals system .

[racer951]

Here are two posts, both dated today, taken from a different forum:

"I just spoke with Bill Savage of SCORE tech and he said that most all the classes would be effected with the new roll cage rules EXCEPT class 11 vehicles. He said " they will be unchanged in terms of construction and material". that's the horse's mouth......"

"Just got off the phone with SCORE Tech, 760-599-1013, and was informed that the new rule change ragarding ALL CLASSES will be out in one week."

[scottm]

What are the chances that BITD and others will adopt the new rules?

[Bryan_D]

Well since this whole deal is going off like a fart in church I seem to doubt that they would also shoot themselves in the foot.

On a side note are these new Savage Built TTs all legal in 06 or do they get a free pass due to the builder?????

[roach]

anybody want to buy a sweater??? i have knitted several now. working on my third

[Byrdman]

I thought there was going to be an Officall annoucment the 1st of May on the cage deal?? The inspections were going to start this week right?? What happened? Was this all bullsh*t or what??

[scottm]

I'm sure Sal will get an earful at the 500, stuff like nice knowing you, good luck with that, etc.

[zjohnson]

Just too stew the pot a little more . . . I re-read the entire post, I'm confused about the 4130 vs. mild steel option. I was looking for a reason why certain tubes need to be 4130? I know welding on 4130 without a post heat treat actually weakens the weld area, so why is 4130 being used without a mandatory post heat treating? Does SCORE want tubes to break at welds or bend the tubes?
I think that one thing SCORE tech is overlooking is that many of the injuries in the past couple years have come to components being "too strong." I think a larger concern should be people breaking backs. Along with this roll cage discussion, they should recommend a method for attatching seats to the chassis, in such a way to minimize impact, or force transfer to the passengers.
I think SCORE has the right idea into suggesting a cage design, but I think if you are going to mandate material, tubing size, etc, there should be a reason why . . . Such as tubing size per weight of vehicle is due to a buckling load of XXXXlbs, due to this load, you need to use 4130 instead of 1020, etc . . .
But along with the roll cage requirements, seat mounting should be discussed. A maximum decceleration of occupants should be mandated, and SCORE should put some money into R&D of a mandatory seat mounting configuration.

Thanks,

Zac

[scottm]

OK, the ultimate roll cage test just happened at the tt250 when Kyle Taylor went end over end at 100+ mph. The driver I was pitting for estimated the debris field was 300-400 yards long. This crash can provide priceless info on cage construction. I sure hope score takes advantage of this thankfully rare event. Can anyone list what materials were used, the tube dia and wa