I am merely an un-informed spectator, but the jump from .058 to .095 seems like a bit too much. Where did .065 or even .083 go? Is there such thing as an .095 car to take testing data from? I know the Creasy family had an .083 McKinney car that they ran for over a decade that would be a great study.
Sleeves on the bends as well like top fuel.
I guess I better get my SFI order in tomorrow.

Appears that all current TF chassis will be obsolete as of April. No idea when FC chassis will need to be replaced. If you are a fuel team owner with major sponsorship, do you pay a premium to get new cars to start testing in January? If not, you are going to have pay to test new cars before April (or whenever for FC). Teams without major (or no) sponsorship are going to have make some very difficult decisions - which could include dropping out of competition. This is just ugly.

__________________
"The Counterfeiter"

I can't believe the need for such a big jump. There are many .065 F/C cars running right now with no problems. They also have sleeves at the joints.
We'll see in a couple of weeks if .095 is real or a story?
I have run a F/C car (Telstar) with a .095 bottom rail, and .065 for the rest, and liked it ! (no welders needed)
For me ,.049 shouldn't be allowed anywhere in the chassis, .058 minimum, , ,
.065 everywhere should make a safe car? Maybe .083 bottom rails at most.
Nasty, Rooman, Meyer ?
Tell us what you would build?

Well Jerry, I'm still confused! This topic started with T/F's new spec. I've not seen it yet, but I understand they'll all be hauling around a bunch of iron in back, but the origin of a spec in the first place was to protect the driver. Apparently this new spec doesn't address this much.

I can hardly wait for the F/C spec. as I DO have a "dog in the hunt".

As far as what would I do ? Finish what I've got started out in the shop with Exterior sleeves and .058 wall with NO bends hanging in the sky.

__________________
Bob Meyer Race Cars / San Diego
2005 Our 40th Anniversary

Not a really great source for an update, but I did pay for the new FC cert yesterday, and was told by the lady at the SFI front desk that they are looking at two to three weeks until the new FC spec is released.
There is a good chance that she may not be perfectly informed and in the loop on the exact release, but this is what I was told.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled dragster discussion.

I can't find the thread that someone was discussing mil spec on the chassis tolerances, but I just saw this on the news tonight and it was disturbingly familiar:

CANOE -- CNEWS - World: U.S. F-15s plagued by defective support beam: crash probe

F-15's breaking in half in mid-air due to "a defective metal beam in the frame (that) cracked" should be raising a red flag in our world to see if the beam was "normalized", "Heat treated" or some other fashion of "stregnthening" the material that may not have the expected outcome.

__________________
"Run what u brung, and hope u brought enough...."
http://www.myspace.com/relentlesslightingdesign

"The frames of the central fuselage section, together with the two large variable geometry intakes on either side, are manufactured from machined Aluminium...

The wing main torque box is of multi-spar construction. The front wing spar is machined aluminium while the three main spars, bulkheads connecting them, and the frames of the engine pods are of machined titanium."

That should cover all block 1 through block 42 aircraft (A to D aircraft) some E series were built in Block 41 and 42

Sorry nothing as heavy as C-moly was used... Series E aircraft were first produced starting in '85. A thru D's '70 thru '85...

Can you heat treat Aluminium or Titanium?

d'kid

__________________
Comfortably Numb- Fly Navy, Build SEABEES
A friend helps you move, A Real Friend helps you Move Bodies
http://www.myspace.com/ocir_forever

Karl- you are too damned smart for your own good sometimes....
Thanks buddy...

And yes, you're right- Barbados next weekend, Jamaica the weekend after and Tel Aviv 3 days after that..Sucks to be me- I miss ALL the test sessions!!!

__________________
"Run what u brung, and hope u brought enough...."
http://www.myspace.com/relentlesslightingdesign

We're waaay of the subject on this but maybe former MD now Boeing should have paid attention to the Russians- their late model fighters were built of chromoly- just make more power to overcome the weight!

The FC/TF specs IMHOP have a major flaw- they' re designing for structural loads, from what I gather, and not the TRANSIENT, DYNAMIC loads that occur (of probably nearly undefinable nature).

Tell me I'm wrong.

It is my opinion that the specs were designed to protect posteriors only......

Is the TF/FC chassis spec even written yet?

__________________
"The Doctor"
www.wannaberacing.com

Seems like every time I call SFI to check and see if they mailed the new F/C chassis specs to me they keep telling me it will be ready in 2 weeks (that's been going on for over 2 months now).

__________________
"I'm pi$$ed at all most everthing."

Karl,

The problem is not in the wing spars or the main box, it's just ahead of that point. The longitudinal spars are cracking - they had video of an in-air incident on TV and the entire nose section, from the rear cockpit bulkhead forward, snapped off, leaving the inlets and wing intact. Fortunately, the pilot was able to eject safely after the nose broke off, as it was free-falling. Almost as scary as Cory Mac's wild ride.

- Larry