Chassis Failure, Not Team Force (1 Viewer)

[JRX]

I wonder if this will be Skuza's return ??????

That would be fun...not counting on it....

 

[Keith Burgan]

If all else fails it helps to talk to those directly involved. I just got off the phone after speaking with both Brian Corradi and Aaron Brooks, the crew chiefs at Gotham City Racing.
There was no failure in the heat treated tubing. The K under the seat area is 4130 N and takes a lot of the load from the rear end anti rotation bracket. This is the same area that failed in Robert Hight's car during the Monday test following the Richmond race and even that was not the first time that there had been a problem in that area following severe tire shake.
The new frames (both the Force 3 rail and the 1.5" x .095" two rail) have an oval section crossmember under the rear end and larger tubes in the K to address the issue. The car that Mel was driving was the previous generation with the added lower X and upper K additions but the round crossmember and smaller tubes in the K.
The Chuck Haase reworked chassis that the "B" team will now run at Pomona is simply a back half upgrade to the 1.5" x .095" main rails with some changes in the diagonals in the side bay of the cockpit. Those changes were prompted by Dr Rory Davis' testing that took place late last year. Melanie will drive the new spec chassis that was completed after the "A" team left for Phoenix. That car is a standard 1.5" x .095" McKinney.

Roo

 

[Draw 3D]

Damn Roo, using facts to shatter preconceived notions can be hazardous.

And, I know you're a busy guy, but have you checked on what we discussed the other day?

Thanks,

 

[Toejam]

If all else fails it helps to talk to those directly involved. I just got off the phone after speaking with both Brian Corradi and Aaron Brooks, the crew chiefs at Gotham City Racing.
There was no failure in the heat treated tubing. The K under the seat area is 4130 N and takes a lot of the load from the rear end anti rotation bracket. This is the same area that failed in Robert Hight's car during the Monday test following the Richmond race and even that was not the first time that there had been a problem in that area following severe tire shake.
The new frames (both the Force 3 rail and the 1.5" x .095" two rail) have an oval section crossmember under the rear end and larger tubes in the K to address the issue. The car that Mel was driving was the previous generation with the added lower X and upper K additions but the round crossmember and smaller tubes in the K.
The Chuck Haase reworked chassis that the "B" team will now run at Pomona is simply a back half upgrade to the 1.5" x .095" main rails with some changes in the diagonals in the side bay of the cockpit. Those changes were prompted by Dr Rory Davis' testing that took place late last year. Melanie will drive the new spec chassis that was completed after the "A" team left for Phoenix. That car is a standard 1.5" x .095" McKinney.

Roo

Keith didn't the Lower X on Robert Hight's car crack last year during testing?

 

[The Counterfeiter]

A little late getting on this one - unless I missed something, Mel has not completed her crossover requirements. Any news?

 

[Keith Burgan]

Keith didn't the Lower X on Robert Hight's car crack last year during testing?

Joe,
the failure in Robert's car was in the same place as Mel's.

Paul,
I may be able to come up with something this weekend and get back to you next week.

Roo

 

[Paul]

A little late getting on this one - unless I missed something, Mel has not completed her crossover requirements. Any news?

I am pretty sure she got her crossover last year during Vegas testing. She is the one listed as Not on File.

LAS VEGAS TEST 4 - Funny Car Time Trial Notes, Session #1

 

[ex-nsp]

2 things on topic- So the K member that failed DIDN'T pull (crack) away from the HARDENED tube, correct? and if Ms Melanie only ran 244 I recall something faster was required. 265?

Correct me and clarify.

 

[d'kid]

2 things on topic- So the K member that failed DIDN'T pull (crack) away from the HARDENED tube, correct? and if Ms Melanie only ran 244 I recall something faster was required. 265?

Correct me and clarify.

Norm, testing after V2, she ran 4.80 @319 and she also ran an 4.81 I believe

She's had her flopper ticket since before last season ended


d'kid

 

[The Counterfeiter]

I am pretty sure she got her crossover last year during Vegas testing. She is the one listed as Not on File.


Several "Not on File" - however. . .
"Left Lane: Not on File Runs 4.808/319.90, Now #1
Troxel with a nice pass, straight down the groove"

Thanks Paul!

 

[ex-nsp]

Thanks, guys, re: Melanie- What a classy lady she is. Wishin' her a great season!

Probly too late here on the left coast for a clarifcation as to just what fractured in the K brace.

 

[Keith Burgan]

Thanks, guys, re: Melanie- What a classy lady she is. Wishin' her a great season!

Probly too late here on the left coast for a clarifcation as to just what fractured in the K brace.

Norm,
from my conversation with Corradi I took it that the brace tube itself failed in the area of the HAZ. It was not in the weld itself or related to the heat treated tubing in the main rails. The rear crossmember may also be made out of heat treated tubing but I was unable to contact Murf last night to confirm that, but again the failure was in a piece of 4130N, just as in Hight's case.
In the cars that I have personally had contact with the only HT tubes are the main rails and the rear end uprights. That rear lower crossmember may have also been made out of the HT but I did not look that closely at the labelling. All of the later Murf cars have the HT tube labelled as such along with a batch number for tracking purposes.

Roo

 

[ex-nsp]

Thanks, Roo

It's apparent there are some very complicaterd DYNAMIC things happening not fully understood. It also appears that the manufacture of Cond N re; staying witin the metalugical limits leaves a LOT to be desired. Locally, I have bought 4130N from an AIRCRAFT supply house that was so scratched - in places gouged -that had to send it back- no visual QC in the warehouse even.

 

[Tom]

Norm,

If that tubing came from an aircraft supply house without the correct paperwork indicating it was airworthy then the supply house is not in line with FAA regulations. They could be fined and sanctioned. It should have come with a certificate of certification (CofC) or a form 8130-3. If it did not cme with the correct paper work then the reciept should so state that this is not an airworthy product.

 

[none]

Is it a requirement of NHRA that all 4130 used in chassis construction be certified to FAA specs, and to have that documentation (8130)?

If not, and the product in question from an aviation supply company is sold for other than aviation use, and is not represented as meeting FAA certs, why would that be an issue with the feds?

 

[nick name]

Just a quick thought;
O.K. Bill Miller is satan. He tried to build a car that was not exactly to cert of the NHRA and SFI. He may never again pass an NHRA tech, and could be blackballed for eternity. Love him or hate him for offending the powers that be, he could be in the right with the new car or in the worng - and blah-blah-blah.
But the real question- is the data from his testing sound? Are the findings real? Are the equations valid? Are the conclusions sufficient in clarity? If he is really on to something, are we all standing on the sidelines watching the safety of our sport robbed by egos that are not willing to admit fault, but rather cover up, assemble and blackball to avoid truth?

From what I understand Miller simply refined the standards that SFI set in the frame rails directly behind the driver. He was not happy with driver safety in some situations.

The SFI specs call for certain specific joint areas with a corresponding piece of tubing doubled over the main rails. The way I understand it, Miller was concerned with the current "breakaway" point in that he calculated it would leave the area of the driver's back mostly exposed during a crash involving chassis break up. His design moves the point to an area where the driver would still have tubing protection on the back of the seat.

I may have gotten the explanation wrong, so those with direct knowledge are welcome to correct me.

Regardless, even after 40 years of drag racing this whole chassis thing has me shaking my head. I can't believe it's come to this.

 

[TOOLMAN]

Ok, I'm not sure what really is going on here, i have some experience with 4130N used in pro stock chassis, but something drastic has changed in the fuel cars since 2003. F/C was running 4.80 ET in 2003 and there was nothing going on at that time. The main chassis builders need to place their egos aside and get together with their notes from 2003 to current and figure out whats happened. before someone gets killed. NHRA needs to stick their heads back in their b$()S and stay out of this and let the guys building these chassis fix them.

 

[Tom]

(quote)

Is it a requirement of NHRA that all 4130 used in chassis construction be certified to FAA specs, and to have that documentation (8130)?

An FAA form 8130-3 can be used as a CofC to show tracability of the product.

(Quote)

If not, and the product in question from an aviation supply company is sold for other than aviation use, and is not represented as meeting FAA certs, why would that be an issue with the feds?

Any product that is sold by a company (supply house) that supplies approved FAA products, has to abide by the FAA regulations. Those requirements include certificates showing tracability back to the manufacture. Just having the lettering or lable on products isn't enough to trace the product back to the origin. Most companies (including supply houses)are required to separate the non-FAA products from FAA certificated products. A product that is purchased from a certified supply house could be considered as an approved product when in fact it is not certificated. If the NHRA requires that the tubing or materials meet FAA standards and requirements, then the NHRA should be asking for those certificates for all products consumed during manufacture of a frame. This is the way it works with any manufactured or repaired FAA product.

 

[none]

Tom, thanks for the response, but I'm not sure it answers my question(s).

I'm aware of the FAA certification and documentation requirements for manufacterers, materials, parts, supplies, etc., used in the aviation industry, due to my own background. You may have a similar background as well.

However, I wasn't clear about whether NHRA required materials, or processes, to meet those same FAA cert and doc requirements. Do you, or anyone else know the answer to this?

Although my second question is not actually germaine to the discussion here, it is just something I would like to know.

Does the fact that an aviation supply house has to meet certain additional FAA requirements preclude them from also supplying non cert or doc materials for other than aviation use? Unairworthy items or materials, as it were, for a different end use.

On the face of it, I would think no. That's why I was wondering why you seemed to contend the supply house would be in hot water with the feds for selling unairworthy mat'l., when in fact the mat'l. would be used in a non-aviation environment, and the certs were not even required. Which I guess actually takes us back to question #1 again!

Thanks!

 

[ex-nsp]

Not wanting to make this a long-winded diatribe about the state of 4130N when purchasing it- here's some facts about my post awhile back- the Supply house I deal with will give you MFRS spec for $25.00 an order (5 or more pieces extra) but if the brain-dead employee pulls down a scratch-filled. gouged tube -those flaws are potential STRESS-RAISERS, engineer-types, and COULD cause fractures and failures. No amount of paperwork could convince the failure of the part wasn't the BUILDER's fault!

The particular supplier is a convenient 20 miles away (with a branch on the east coast also) and they NEVER question what the application of the material.-Could even use it for an "ugly stick" to beat your wife.