oulton park meeting

[RLambert]

Here is the footage from my car,

Roof mounted gopro - https://youtu.be/rrxPi_M01U4

Vbox video - you can see Sammie's accident in the rear camera - http://youtu.be/ByidatUR8F4

[Scooterman]

Great footage, horrible accident.

[biggles]

Ref Damage to Nick Roads car and flat bar Interesting to see But irrespective of of whether it was welded to the floor  damage would still occur. With my  roll cage which was deemed unacceptable to the club as it was reckoned to be a performance enhancement!! this would not happen as it is integral with the chassis and would probably have pushed the car sideways. Jon

[Glenn Oswin]

I think we may of had a different outcome if we had had a proper full green flag lap, we never got to see the damp patches on the first corner. I understand this is to save time during the day, something we should watch as a club at all the meetings, ok if it's dry but look what has happened when it's damp.

[Trevor Williams]

Not going to comment on "proper green flag lap", but the accident was a carbon copy of one at the same corner a few years back. And Lien's car was destroyed in that one as well if I remember correctly.

[RLambert]

There are always accidents there and nearly always because a car has gone wide and they lose it and come back across the track.
Exactly the same thing happened to me when I was pole in an MX5 race and I got taken into the barriers on the right by an out of control car!

If I ever get pole again at Oulton I'm going to start from the pit lane!

[Caryl Wills]

So glad that Sammie is OK.

After seeing Nick's front floor brace bent like it was tin foil, there has to be a case for there being something stiffer being mandated between the front/rear cage legs.

[Aubrey Brocklebank]

I am delighted that Sammie is in one piece.

Re Nick's point on the seat belts. I understand that belts are designed to stretch a little on impact to absorb the energy and they do not recover. Replacement may not be mandatory but not doing so is jolly stupid.

[Paul]

So glad that Sammie is OK.

After seeing Nick's front floor brace bent like it was tin foil, there has to be a case for there being something stiffer being mandated between the front/rear cage legs.

There already are options Caryl,it's just they are not in this years regs yet. It does depend on how you install the flat bar too.mine is stitch welded to the floor and to the bulkhead at the front as well as being bolted to the chassis.The rear is stitch welded across the body and on 88 is stitch welded to the floor and the rear bulkhead. NOT just welded to the rollcage feet.i am amazed there are still cars out there like nicks,i thought years ago we had told people to weld and bolt them.
I proposed the flat bar 15 years ago as it was the minimum requirement in belgium ,you have to consider it is 8 times thicker than the floor!

[Matthew Hollis]

More footage, this time from my car. Captures the main impact  :o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7ust_8S5pg&feature=youtu.be

[Nick Roads]

The pictures and video are similar to my recollection of what happened. Not sure we will know exactly the sequence of events. Stewards told me they had it all on video and it was a 'racing incident' after I had given a statement. I was, and am, happy with that conclusion. With all that said Richard's suggestion of starting in pit lane sounds very attractive at the moment.

On the safety points then the battery coming out I now realise was more to do with the impact going into the battery bay and deforming the bulkhead.

I asked structural engineer at a company I work with for steelwork in buildings about the proposed regulation for the bar across the floor. His reply in italics:

Although roll cages and cars are not really my forte I would say that the bar is going to provide very little resistance.  It looks to me that the bar is there to provide compressive resistance to the frame.  Comparatively a flat metal bar offers little to no resistance relative to a box section.  I would suggest that to improve the roll cage the bar should replaced with a box section or similar.

I would focus on the rear bar in my car. My rear bar did not pop the welds but deformed by 80 mm upwards presumably as the chassis deformed below and at front. If my bars had been bolted and welded by NASA at the foot of the roll cage it would still bend like it was a reed when hit at 50 mph? Both bars would survive better if welded and bolted to other parts of the car as Paul mentions but why not use a box section which is more designed for compression and can presumably be snugly fitted against the tube.

The hip protection bar on my roll/ safety cage passenger door seems to have been stronger than the chassis and protected/ saved me. The door is literally folded around it.

On facebook Marc Fenner says the floor bar was there as a result of the roll cage punching through the chassis when a car rolled. Looking at other roll/ safety cages they do not often feature floor bars (the chassis is assumed to be able to provide compressive protection I assume) so am not sure the exact purpose for the 2cv race car. Most other cages have no floor bars but have a 'dash' or 'knee' bar.

I will carefully look at my chassis after Brands as mine, like others I suspect, is well over 10 years old and I wonder if it preformed as it was intended too.

Paul - The Belgians I am told have a tube running under the body and through the chassis which connects to the foot of the safety cage in present regulations?. This is either 40x40x3 box (not 50x25x3 as proposed in new UK tech regs) or tube only as I read it. Item D on page 20 of attached and I have pasted the image below. Their cars have had some pretty big crashes and I cannot see why we would not add the Belgian location and box size to the proposed regs?

They also have the 'dash' / 'knee' bar along with other extra sections. The front tubes 'c' are optional. The rear section we do not have in our regs is to largely protect the fuel cell which is located in the boot behind a fire wall.

[Paul]

Mr Fenner is wrong Nick, the bar was brought in for side impact not for rollover,I should know it was my proposal. The belgian style through the chassis was deemed not acceptable at an agm two or three years ago. We now allow box section or rollcage tube as options.
I reiterate IF the bars had been welded along their length they would have stood up to the job much better than yours did.
The reason for flat bar as a minimum was to allow those of us with large feet to still be able to operate the pedals .
I think the technical committee should inspect the cars at brands and examine how the cross bars /box section /tubes have been installed.

[Scooterman]

My rollcage foot bars are the same as Nick's. Will definitely have them reinforced with box section, but I won't be able to get this done for Brands.

[Simon Crook]

mine too Adam - and tied into the chassis with only four bolts, on the previous chassis not even bolted!!!!!! 

[Chris Yates]

I would certainly recommend anyone with a flat bar across the REAR legs to replace that with a tube of similar diameter to the main roll cage. The front bar is more an issue due to foot position.

Would it be an option for future regs discussions to have tube across the front legs, with an exception for where the footrest is, which could be replaced with flat bar? And then somehow secure the tube to the chassis/shell. I know that the structure would only be as strong as its weakest part (the bar) but with a shorter length of bar it might limit the deflection upwards that was seen on Nick's car.

Alternatively perhaps we can have a crack at voting a bar at dash/knee level rather than on the floor?

Is it just me or is the chassis the wrong way around on that illustration of Nick's :D