PROPOSED CHANGE (2/10/13): Add to rule 5 on page 7: The nose area must have a minimum radius of a 3 inch sphere "(6 inch diameter)".
Aimee Hart said
Feb 11, 2013
There have been safety concerns with nose cones having the potential for piercing of other vehicles, spectators, or other persons especially during crash scenarios.
NCK TECH said
Feb 12, 2013
Maybe this should read: If the nose is to be pointed it should have a minimum radius of a 3 sphere.
I think the cars that have height to the nose would be ok with a tighter radius left to right because the up and down radius is allot greater making a larger impact area.
Zaine Stapleton said
Feb 12, 2013
I like the wording that NCK TECH just described. Short and simple and to the point.
Point, get it?
Zaine
Zaine Stapleton said
Feb 14, 2013
Or word it if your going to have a pointed nose, it needs to be rounded at the tip.
Zaine
mhodgertt said
Feb 15, 2013
After being involve in these cars for over 20 years and mainly dealing with high school teams each teacher interprets a rule the way they want to, unless it is very specific. We have had cars show up unsafe in so many ways, Knees above the driver's head with no protection, brakes that did not work well, little or no side crash protection, mirrors that did not allow drivers to see behind them clearly, cars that were welded very poorly, etc. and the teacher is mad because we don't want to let their students drive. They say according to the rule book (in his mind) their car meets the rules and argues with the officials. Just saying "if it is pointed it needs to be rounded" would be much easier to write but it would continue to be a problem with a few teachers/students. Some team would put a 1" rounded end (like half a ball) on the end of a very sharp nose and call it good!
Zaine, take your nose on car 59, if you stay on the ground your nose is great, low and will go under a car and not puncture it. But if in a wreck you went into the air your nose could really do some damage to the side of a car and the driver inside in a T-bone crash when you flew into it. It is fairly pointed and has a sharp edge along the bottom made out of fairly thick aluminum. I feel it is safe but having been in and seen a number wrecks things don't always behave as you think they will.
I have been grazed twice by flying wheels when another car's axle has broken and bounced into me. Another time a wheel took off the front of my Wolverine's nose after coming down from about 30 feet in the air and hitting my car as it fell then bounced over my roll bar by about 1/2" and inch just missing my head. You never know what is safe or not all we can do is try to make things as safe as possible in case something out of the ordinary and unexpected happens.
Zaine Stapleton said
Feb 16, 2013
The reason we dicided on the shape of the nose for my car was to protect my feet in the event of a crash for that sole purpose. Other reason was to have some aerodynamics to help on the longer courses. I didn't want to break my feet/legs since I was and still do pole vaulting I need my legs.
My car is pretty stable, and if I did crash into someone else yes the nose would push the other car over the nose of mine (never was really the plan, but it would work.) But really, every car that could get airborn all have the potential of doing serious damage to another car with or without a pointed nose. When a Formula 1 car, NASCAR, NHRA, or any other vehicle gets airborn, crazy stuff happens and things that seemed 'safe' are actually more destructive. That's just something else to keep in mind when deciding on how to word it.
Zaine
Zahrack said
May 3, 2014
I know this is last year's post but there doesn't seem to be a place for 2014 changes yet. Put shortly, I have an issue with this change. I understand very well what some of the people above have said and I have to say that I agree with Zaine's last post in this matter. I agree that sharp edges/points can be dangerous, but it seem to me that a 6 inch diameter minimum diameter begins to push the boundary. (Another thing, When you say 3 inch sphere I think of a 3 inch diameter sphere not a 6 inch diameter sphere.) Also, I would like to ask. "Has there ever been an accident where a pointed nosed vehicle did more damage than a blunt nosed vehicle?" If the answer is no then I have to wonder where the sense in this regulation is.
What if someone complied with this regulation (and other sharp edge regulations) but they had a sharper point the other way? For example: From the top the nose has a 6 inch diameter curve, but from the side they have an inch or less diameter. This would be the equivalent of a 3 inch diameter point at the nose. My point is that even though the tip is blunt one way it can be pointed the other way.
I believe that a 1/2 inch diameter point will pass the other sharp edges test as you can't cut yourself very easily with such. In effect I have a counter proposal for this regulation which involves both axis'.
The product of both the top and side diameters at the nose of any vehicle should be no less than 6 inches, as long as the sharpest edge is (There is room for debate here.) half an inch in diameter. The sharpest nose point allowed is a 3 inch diameter sphere.
This means that if one of the edges has a half inch diameter the other edge's smallest diameter allowed would be 12 inches. Because 12 x .5 = 6 inches. Or if both edges are a 3 inch diameter you multiply them by 2 (their quantity) and get 6 inches. 3 x 2 = 6 inches."
I just now thought. It could be allowed (Maybe...) for sharper points in cases like Zaine's where the point runs very near to the ground. You could even put a condition where sharp points where allowed if made by an easily compressible substance such as sponge-like foam, a water/air tight paper shell, a thin layer of fiberglass that is proven to break easily or even a hard tipped nose with a spring loading behind it. These are just some idea's that came to my head that can allow for aesthetically and aerodynamically pleasing results.
Thanks in advance for all considerations.
Sincerely,
Zach
-- Edited by Zahrack on Saturday 3rd of May 2014 01:02:44 AM
-- Edited by Zahrack on Saturday 3rd of May 2014 01:09:42 AM
mhodgertt said
May 3, 2014
Zach,
As far as you thinking of a 3" sphere as having a 3" diameter that is why the rule is spelled out as it is "The nose area must have a minimum radius of a 3 inches (6 inch diameter) in at least one direction and not be dangerously pointed in the other direction". To me that seems pretty cut and dry. I have to admit I wanted a measurement on the "not be dangerously pointed" because of people like you that think that a razor is what you want on the front of your car. You can look in any book, do any wind tunnel test you want and unless you are going near or above the speed of sound (~340 m/s or 760 miles an hour) a rounded nosecone is more aerodynamic. Why do you think the space shuttle is rounded? How about commercial airlines noses? The fasted electrathons around C. Michael Lewis who went 62 miles in one hour or the Clouds who went nearly that fast and over 100 miles an hour at bonniville salt flats---both have nice rounded noses.
tecgen said
Oct 10, 2014
Does a flat nose area qualify?
mhodgertt said
Oct 10, 2014
Yes if it is a large enough area. So a 2" X 2" flat would not unless the rest of the body tapers away from it so that a go/no go gauge shows it is blunt enough. But a larger flat nose definitely would.
PROPOSED CHANGE (2/10/13): Add to rule 5 on page 7: The nose area must have a minimum radius of a 3 inch sphere "(6 inch diameter)".
I think the cars that have height to the nose would be ok with a tighter radius left to right because the up and down radius is allot greater making a larger impact area.
I like the wording that NCK TECH just described. Short and simple and to the point.
Point, get it?
Zaine
Or word it if your going to have a pointed nose, it needs to be rounded at the tip.
Zaine
Zaine, take your nose on car 59, if you stay on the ground your nose is great, low and will go under a car and not puncture it. But if in a wreck you went into the air your nose could really do some damage to the side of a car and the driver inside in a T-bone crash when you flew into it. It is fairly pointed and has a sharp edge along the bottom made out of fairly thick aluminum. I feel it is safe but having been in and seen a number wrecks things don't always behave as you think they will.
I have been grazed twice by flying wheels when another car's axle has broken and bounced into me. Another time a wheel took off the front of my Wolverine's nose after coming down from about 30 feet in the air and hitting my car as it fell then bounced over my roll bar by about 1/2" and inch just missing my head. You never know what is safe or not all we can do is try to make things as safe as possible in case something out of the ordinary and unexpected happens.
The reason we dicided on the shape of the nose for my car was to protect my feet in the event of a crash for that sole purpose. Other reason was to have some aerodynamics to help on the longer courses. I didn't want to break my feet/legs since I was and still do pole vaulting I need my legs.
My car is pretty stable, and if I did crash into someone else yes the nose would push the other car over the nose of mine (never was really the plan, but it would work.) But really, every car that could get airborn all have the potential of doing serious damage to another car with or without a pointed nose. When a Formula 1 car, NASCAR, NHRA, or any other vehicle gets airborn, crazy stuff happens and things that seemed 'safe' are actually more destructive. That's just something else to keep in mind when deciding on how to word it.
Zaine
I know this is last year's post but there doesn't seem to be a place for 2014 changes yet. Put shortly, I have an issue with this change. I understand very well what some of the people above have said and I have to say that I agree with Zaine's last post in this matter. I agree that sharp edges/points can be dangerous, but it seem to me that a 6 inch diameter minimum diameter begins to push the boundary. (Another thing, When you say 3 inch sphere I think of a 3 inch diameter sphere not a 6 inch diameter sphere.) Also, I would like to ask. "Has there ever been an accident where a pointed nosed vehicle did more damage than a blunt nosed vehicle?" If the answer is no then I have to wonder where the sense in this regulation is.
What if someone complied with this regulation (and other sharp edge regulations) but they had a sharper point the other way? For example: From the top the nose has a 6 inch diameter curve, but from the side they have an inch or less diameter. This would be the equivalent of a 3 inch diameter point at the nose. My point is that even though the tip is blunt one way it can be pointed the other way.
I believe that a 1/2 inch diameter point will pass the other sharp edges test as you can't cut yourself very easily with such. In effect I have a counter proposal for this regulation which involves both axis'.
The product of both the top and side diameters at the nose of any vehicle should be no less than 6 inches, as long as the sharpest edge is (There is room for debate here.) half an inch in diameter. The sharpest nose point allowed is a 3 inch diameter sphere.
This means that if one of the edges has a half inch diameter the other edge's smallest diameter allowed would be 12 inches. Because 12 x .5 = 6 inches. Or if both edges are a 3 inch diameter you multiply them by 2 (their quantity) and get 6 inches. 3 x 2 = 6 inches."
I just now thought. It could be allowed (Maybe...) for sharper points in cases like Zaine's where the point runs very near to the ground. You could even put a condition where sharp points where allowed if made by an easily compressible substance such as sponge-like foam, a water/air tight paper shell, a thin layer of fiberglass that is proven to break easily or even a hard tipped nose with a spring loading behind it. These are just some idea's that came to my head that can allow for aesthetically and aerodynamically pleasing results.
Thanks in advance for all considerations.
Sincerely,
Zach
-- Edited by Zahrack on Saturday 3rd of May 2014 01:02:44 AM
-- Edited by Zahrack on Saturday 3rd of May 2014 01:09:42 AM
As far as you thinking of a 3" sphere as having a 3" diameter that is why the rule is spelled out as it is "The nose area must have a minimum radius of a 3 inches (6 inch diameter) in at least one direction and not be dangerously pointed in the other direction". To me that seems pretty cut and dry. I have to admit I wanted a measurement on the "not be dangerously pointed" because of people like you that think that a razor is what you want on the front of your car. You can look in any book, do any wind tunnel test you want and unless you are going near or above the speed of sound (~340 m/s or 760 miles an hour) a rounded nosecone is more aerodynamic. Why do you think the space shuttle is rounded? How about commercial airlines noses? The fasted electrathons around C. Michael Lewis who went 62 miles in one hour or the Clouds who went nearly that fast and over 100 miles an hour at bonniville salt flats---both have nice rounded noses.
Does a flat nose area qualify?