LocostUSA.com

Quote begins -

For those of you that remember that I asked about racing a locost in the west, I did get some good pointers (thanx Heikki!) and have found out new info that I'll share and hopefully someone will be able to use it in the future.

First emails were sent to Ryan Flaherty, NASA's regional director -

(me) -

> Hello there!
>
> I'm right at the beginning of a 7 replica build-up.
>
> I wanted to know if the car will be able to run in any competitive
> low budget class (i.e. not SU or such).
>
> I did find a document suggesting there is a se7en challenge class
> (this one - http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/Se7ens-
> Challenge.pdf ) but could not find any evidence of this series
> being active.

(Ryan) -

The car would go in our Performance Touring Class. Rules are here
http://www.performancetouring.com/

(me) -

Thanx for the reply, I have seen this page before and have read the PDF file with the rules, however, it does not list a home built seven replica and the only thing close to it that I can see is an actual caterham super 7 that is listed as 240 hp while I intend to build my car with a one liter bike motor that makes much less power (155 on a good day).

Is the se7ens challenge running or was it an experiment that didn't work?

Also, I have a few tech questions in regards to the chassis and roll cage that I'll be building that I would like to make sure about before I'm building the car and aren't completely clear to me in the NASA CCR, mainly because the references aren't exactly matching with the normal ways that the seven is built.
I assume you understand why one would not want to build a car just to find out at the end that it isn't race legal ...



(Ryan) -

This came from our PT/ST Director " I approved the Brunton Stalkers for ST also with the same modification factors as the Caterhams" so they are the same for classing purposes. If you have another motor, I would guess you would have to ask for a swap evaluation. If you want to do that you would need to email greg@nasa-tt.com


So I emailed Greg -

(me) -

I was refered to you by Ryan Flaherty with questions regarding a lotus seven replica that I'm building.

My 2 main concerns are -

1. Making sure that the chassis with the integrated cage that I'm building is going to be legal for racing with NASA.

2. Making sure that my choice of drivetrain isn't going to stick me in a class that I cannot be competitive without spending a fortune and a half as I don't have that kind of $$..

With regards to the cage, I have read section 15.6 of the CCR and I need some clarification to some of the specs.

My choice of motor is probably a small bike motor, probably 1.0L displacement or so.
It will not be making anywhere near the power of the current caterhams or the stalker.


(Greg) -

If you have questions about whether the cage is legal from a safety aspect, you should ask John Lindsey (I have cc'd him if you need to ask him questions about the cage). If you have questions about whether the cage is legal from a class rules aspect, then I can answer your questions. If the car is basically a replica Lotus Seven, then it is approved for our Super Touring Series. You should read those rules when building the car, and use the modification factors listed for the Caterham, Lotus 7, and Brunton Stalker. Since you will be using a smaller motor, you will want to prep the car for the ST2 level. Depending on the weight of the car and tire size and type, your car could be competitive in ST2, even with the smaller motor if prepped correctly.

It is not the choice of drivetrain that is putting you in the higher classes, it is your choice of chassis. The only tube-frame cars that we have approved for Performance Touring are a few tube frame spec. cars that are required to follow their spec. build requirements 100%, including tire size and brand. These include the Mazda Spec GT, Factory Five Spec Racer, Legends and Baby Grands, Renault Sports Racer, and Allison Legacy cars.

The PT Rules do allow me to classify your car into PT; however, I would only do that if the car is clearly not anywhere close to being an ST2 car. And, I would want a complete build sheet submitted that you would be required to be compliant with. I think that the best route is to stick with ST2, because you will be getting a pretty conservative classing in the Performance Touring series, because it is really primarily a series for non-tube-frame cars.

Let me know if you have other questions,

Thanks,
Greg Greenbaum
NASA National TT, PT, ST Director


John Lindsey's email address is - jlindsey@drivenasa.com
I'll email John and update here in case anyone is interested.

Moti


(Martin Keller) -

Hi Moti,

I read your post and would like to read what John Lindsey says about the
roll bar requirements when you get them.

Martin Keller


(Me) -

Hey Martin -

Most of my questions were regarding a chassis with full roll cage and not a 4 point roll bar.
IIRC your car is a street car so I imagine that you probably have a 4 pointer and not a full cage.

But, from the so-cal group of caterhams that I've seen that are running with NASA there isn't even a single car with a full cage, they all have a four point bar.

I've been running my turbo miata for a few years at the track and got to the point that I'm going fast enough that I just don't feel safe anymore going with a four point bar...

Found myself in situations like going into a swipper at buttonwillow @ 95 mph to find that the car in front of me dumped coolant all over the track, went sideways pretty hard and somehow managed to catch it before going sideways to the dirt (99% chance of rollover in this situation).

Even a more predictable situation such as losing grip just because of going slightly hotter than I should have into a corner makes you think twice when you're at over 110 mph.

No thanx, I'll go with the full cage this round !

Moti


[Me] -

Hello John!

I was refered to you by Greg Greenbaum with regards to my questions
about a lotus seven replica that I'm building for track use, I want to
make sure that I'm not making any mistakes that will make my car
illegal to race with NASA.

I have read section 15.6 of the CCR and I would love to get some clarifications.

[Quote from 15.6.2] -

"Chassis stiffening is a side benefit of a good roll cage system, but
it is not the intent of these rules. Parts of the cage deemed by the
Chief Scrutineer, to serve no practical purpose other than chassis
stiffening may be considered in violation of the intent of these
rules"

Since the car is built in the form of tube chassis and not a unibody,
the roll cage is an integrated part of the chassis and some of the
bracing will surely be in place in order to stiffen the chassis.
Would that be considered a violation?

Another question I have is in regards to section 15.6.2 .
I plan on constructing my cage as an integrated part of the chassis
and not as an "add-on", you can see how the front legs of the cage
were integrated to the chassis in this picture (disregard the rest of
the cage) -
http://rivera.fotomojo.us/g/MX7/IMG_2444

Would that be considered a violation?


[Quote from 15.6.11] -

"There must be at least 30 degrees between the plane of the main hoop
and the plane of the rear braces."

I'm not sure that reaching 30 degrees of difference between the plane
of the main hoop and the rear braces is even possible, if you look at
the picture here you'll see what I mean -
http://rivera.fotomojo.us/g/MX7/IMG_2645

I don't know that there's a 30 degree difference between the planes in
the car pictured (this isn't my car, just used for reference), but I
think it is smaller than 30 degrees.
I'd appreciate your advice.


Question regarding section 15.6.12 (side impact protection) -
My plan was to install some form of side impact protection resembling
Nascar style door bars but I can't see anything written about it that
isn't marked off.
Something along the lines of the car seen in this picture -
http://russmarshall.com/v/cars/cmc7/coc ... 0.jpg.html

Are these no longer legal?


Question regarding section 15.6.14 (mounting plates) -
Is the minimum required area of 9 square inches including the vertical
portions of the plate if there are any?


Question regarding section 15.6.22 (seat back support) -
I intend to install racing seat in the car that does comply with FIA
8855-1999 standards, however, the side mount brackets that are
normally used with the seat may not be possible to use because of
shortage in interior width.
Since I would surely want to maintain the highest safety standards I
thought about replacing the side mount brackets with chassis
integrated side mount panels that are similar material and of similar
or higher thickness that the side mount brackets and will be fully
welded to the chassis.
The seat will be bolted to the described panels in a similar fashion
to the side mount brackets.
Will the described solution be considered good enough?

Thank you in advance, sorry for the many questions !


[JL] -

> 15.6.2 Chassis stiffening with front hoop. This is not an issue as
far as I can see. The front hoop is simply part of the cage here and not
a stiffening device.

> 15.6.11 We do allow for some variance here, so see what you can fit
in terms of angles and report back to me. We have allowed Caterham cars
with FIA certified cages in the past and I believe some of them did have
shallow angles, but I'd like to see some numbers before I give an
affirmative yes or no.

> 15.6.12 The bars you show here would be fine.

> 15.6.14 The area does include vertical sections, so use that as a guide.

> 15.6.22 This sounds like an acceptable solution as long as the mounts
are of the same thickness and general structure as the originals.

Hope that helps and let me know if other questions come up.
[end]

You're quite welcome!
I'd be happy to see as many of us Locosters driving our cars (when we get to that point) like they were meant to be driven - fast!

No better place to do it than a race track .

We got a bunch of builders in CA - Rod and his V8 monster, Rob with his FJR Yamaha motor, Martin Keller in Ventura and more, I'd really love to meet everyone at some track day.

Moti