LegendsRacer - Legends & Bandolero Racing Forum
LEGENDS => General => Topic started by: igotmylegend on December 02, 2011, 07:19:34 am
-
http://www.uslegendcars.com/documents/clip_support4.pdf (http://www.uslegendcars.com/documents/clip_support4.pdf)
-
I saw a chassis with this update, I don't agree with it. I think USLC wastes to much time making updates that aren't needed and not enough time on the ones that are needed. This update is just going to create more damage in a front impact. Things are designed a way for a reason, like how normal cars have crush zones. This way the area's that are meant to collapse do and the other area's stay safe and unharmed. When you are in an impact the force will continue until it has somewhere to relieve itself. I know people hate replacing front clips but I would rather replace a front clip than a chassis. Adding that support will not only help reinforce the front clip but it will now send that stress somewhere else possibly bending one of the main rails or giving you more of a chance to diamond the main box.
This will have the same argument as if you should run a backside gusset on the front lollipops. Some say you definitely need them and others say they would rather have the lollipop bend compared to sheering off or sending the stress somewhere else. Here is an example, You hit the wall and slam the RF which rips the suspension clean off. The front clip and lollipop look ok but then when you remove the body you notice the lower part of the a-pillar has cracked. The stress from the impact had to go somewhere.
Instead of making this kind of update USLC should look into an update for our fuel cell safety. There is a video on legendsnation.com which will show you why.
-
Simple economics.
It looks like an improvement, will stiffen up the chassis, so racers will run to make the change.
Then they will be buying a chassis instead of aclip after hard frontal impacts, and USLC raises their net income.
Nothing wrong with a business making money.
Just remember, it's not a mandatory change
-
USLC is again trying to make the car a better car, this is an $8.00 kit, not a mandatory change. These kick up supports will not cause cage damage on impact. The biggest reason for the supports is help reduce engine failure, yep that right!! Engine failures. Have you ever jacked a Legend up by the bumper and watched the clip flex? Do you know how much twist takes place in the front clip? Do you understand the engine is rigidly bolts to both frame rails and stuck in the middle of all tha twist. Not good at all. Yes this will add a little rigidity to the clip, but not enough to cause structual damage. These clips needed more support. If you hit that hard you had serious issues anyway, thats for sure. They are trying to do affordable things to help the customer get more life and less failure from these motors. If you have the rubber engine mounts, the yamaha ones, put them in and take the aluminum ones out. Most all other cars have some sort of down bars to support the fron end, they looked at this option and decided it was to involved and costly to the racer and would be potential safety issue. $8.00 and simple to do.
-
Fuel safety is an excellent point!!!! I can tell you they are looking at an enclosure for the cells. New steel fuel cells are $600.00 plus. They are looking at options to place a container around the cell, possibly something that goes over your existing fuel cell for far less than the cost of a metal cell. IT IS CERTAINLY A PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I understand what you are saying about the engines, they should look into redesigning the engine mounts so on a hard front impact less chance of damaging the engine. Since this is not a mandatory update I will wait and see how things go until I jump on the band wagon. If it shows promise and everyone starts doing it then ill consider it but I do not want to weld things on my car then have them three months from now say to take it out because of a problem.
Like when they came out with those black boxes for the fuel pump during a flip, they mandated them until they realized it was burning out red boxes. Then they told people to take them out, i would rather wait until things are proven before i cause myself more headaches LOL.
Hey, I will give them the credit that they are trying things now instead of doing nothing like in years past. It's one step in the right direction.
-
If it helps with not breaking a case in a crash and a mild crash and in a big crash IF the damage is so bad that the energy of the impact was tranferred back to the main rail due to the new bars and damaged the frame, well I hope you walked away and be happy.
-
That made little sense to me. The clip supports do NOT help the cases in a crash, the supports help the front clip from twisting under acceleration and decelaration. The clip has had alot of twist in the past, the motor is solidly bolted to both rails, when they twist(all the time) they are tristing on the engine. Secondly stiffening the clip with these supports will have little to no effect in a crash to the cage. The front clip lacked support, these supports come from the bottom, and are supports. Again, if you hit that hard you have issues. The best way to understand is to see these on a car.
-
This is exactly the type of information that needs to be posted and distributed by USLC. I have to believe that there was engineering and testing done for this, why can't USLC post some of their reasoning for this, and exactly what it is intended to prevent (replacing clips or reduce flex in front clip). Exactly how much flex is there now, and how much will this remove. I have to believe this was all addressed before this bulletin was put out. Without their input, everyone is making guesses as to what is the intent, when the manufacturer sits quiet.....
Not being even close to a chassis guru, I would think that the less the chassis flexes, and the more that is controlled by the shock and spring package, the better. The springs can be adjusted, the flex in the car is kinda an unknown. Am I right in thinking this way?
-
Yes you are correct, and yes there was alot of consultation involved. Yamaha has made several suggestions trying to help. Going to rubber engine mounts will also help, the harmonics produced by this engine are really high at 10,500 rpm's and this effects the whole drivetrain when there are no mounts that can absorb the effects of the harmonics. This engine and its components were manufactured to turn 9500 rpm's and no more. USLC has done testing with a new cam and the standard 9500 box to see if the same horse power and torque can be achieved as we have now, this has gone from the dyno room to the track. This is all being done to help these engines last longer and be more reliable in the future.
-
well anything that help hold the clip from twisting on the gas will do the same in a crash, help hold in place. Do you not think that those bars stiffen the clip from the yoke back....aaa ya
-
Where can these rubber mounts be purchased?
-
They can't be to the best of my knowledge, but I am not a dealer.
I'm sure Dennis will keep us up to date
-
The left side are the original Yamaha rubber inserts (instead if the aluminum cylidrical type). The right side will be some type of rubber or other msterial tha will go between the L bracket and the chassis. I would think just changing to the rubber inserts would help alot.
-
In my experience with isolation mounting different things, rubber mounts will be required at ALL three mounting locations to effectively isolate any vibration coming from the engine. Isolating just the left side of chasiss does litte as all vibration will then be transferred thru right side mount. Rubber mounting of the engine may help prevent stressing the engine mounts, but is not necessarily a fix all as we say. It may just transfer the bad vibration modes to a different frequency, meaning speed and load. The other issue with rubber mounts is that may harden and crack over time, loosing there effectiveness. Also, back from my V-8 days, I remember seeing engines flying out of cars in bad crashes that had the original rubber mounting. We don't want to have that happening either... ;D
-
Harmonics or vibration is one aspect the other is to help absorb a little in the twisting or flexing. There are millions of various uses involving rubber mounts, pads, feet etc. with much higher torque and vibration issues and I see them mounted to rubber or some type of material. Apparently there are values to these concepts. Again I am just passing info along that i am privy to as a dealer, I am not an engineer and putting reason to USLC decisions is not my place.
-
I would be for any improvements to help with engine issues and safety but I am unsure about this update. I personally never had a clip twist from jacking it up. I think if those bars were to help with the twisting of the front clip they would have to be longer. I am not saying it won't work but with how USLC has done with their previous upgrades I will let this one play out awhile before I jump on the bandwagon.
-
1)I promise you, its a proven fact that there is substantial twist in the front clip area, under acceleration and deceleration.
2)Yes when the car is lifted by the bumper the clip does move.
3)The intent is to add some support, but they do NOT want to increase the possibility of structural damage to the cage area.
-
I would be for any improvements to help with engine issues and safety but I am unsure about this update. I personally never had a clip twist from jacking it up. I think if those bars were to help with the twisting of the front clip they would have to be longer. I am not saying it won't work but with how USLC has done with their previous upgrades I will let this one play out awhile before I jump on the bandwagon.
It's not amandatory change/upgrade, so we will see how it goes throughout the season.
I wasn't so sure about them either, but URC, who builds my clips, is all for it, and he knows more than me when it comes to that stuff.
-
Yeah, I think my plan is for now to just leave the clips alone because I know they are straight. When something happens then I will dicuss with our chassis guys and if they want to add them, then I'll go for it.
Is this 2012 Season here yet? LOL
-
Welcome back Gimpster
-
This has nothing to do with breaking motor mount or engine cases. ANY down type bar would put the cage area inline for serious impact.
-
If there going to put supports on the front clips, it need to be a bar that comes up from the front of the clip have a nice 90 deg bend and go back to the firewall, then they could also use it for the shocks too.
-
You guys are getting way to carried away with these braces. For frontal impact all this will do is move your rail bend point out to the end of these braces, right behind the shock towers. For those of you that have never set your car on jack stands under the main frame and then stepped on the front bumper you should give it a try, it will shock you. These braces will stiffen the rear portion of the front clip and should make the car a little more responsive since it should make the suspension work more.
I would gladly take more rigidity in the fronts of these cars even on dirt. With that said, I think 75% of Legend racers wouldn't be able to tell the difference with these braces. I use higher quality tube for my front clips so they are already a bit stiffer than USLC so I definitely welcome more strength. The bottom line is, its a long winter and don't worry to much about this.
After reading your posts Gimp, you really need to visit your physics books again.
-
Well said Jeff, And I agree with you too......
-
All I can say is time will tell. I for one am not going to weld these on just yet.I do feel that Jeff has some very good points. I think that these will for sure tighten a car up but how much is the big question. I also think that if your using the chassis for part of your suspension set-up then everyone would be different. I have always wanted to see some kind of support for the front end and never really though of the way that they came up with. I always thought that you could do a hoop from the top of the clip up to the A post on the cage. I do realize that the door opening poses some problems but could be worked around. All I can say is time will tell.
Scott
-
If you have the rubber engine mounts, the yamaha ones, put them in and take the aluminum ones out.
Dennis, are you saying that it is now legal to run the standard rubber mounts that come with the engine? I thought those were illegal to use?
-
Yes the Yamaha style rubber mounts are legal.
-
are those the mounts we used to run that became illegal?
-
If the rubber mounts are legal, why doesn't USLC sell them and what is the part #? If they are I definitely want to switch to them.
Thanks,
Todd
-
That is going to be one of those areas, that at this point is not covered in the rulebook. It only covers the steel motor mounts that are bolted to the chassis & engine. Pg 47, rule #21 of the 2011 rulebook.
Since it is not covered it falls under the catch-all. It is the gray box on page 42 of the same rulebook under "legend car specs"
So, based on that they are illegal since the aluminum slugs are what USLC delivers...
Hey, if I am incorrect, give me the page number of the rule book so I can read it for myself.
Randy - RPM