|
Post by gravitygrump on Oct 17, 2008 7:56:25 GMT
I have been thinking about the National Rules for soapboxes, which some event organisers have adopted and allow in parallel to their own local rules, which is a good thing. However, as one of the authors of the existing National Rules I am coming round to the view that they are too restrictive, making it difficult for anyone to innovate and realistically restricting National Class racing to children and small adults due to the low (150kg) overall weight limit. This means that average weight adults have to either run very simple, stripped out carts with no bodywork, or very expensive high-tech machines if they want to have any sort of aerodynamic bodywork
I would be interested in anybody's views, but would start by suggesting an increase in the weight limit to somewhere between 175kg and 200kg including driver and any ballast (In practice, lighter soapboxes seem to be quicker anyway on anything other than a straight run with no need to brake or turn). With an increase in maximum width there may be a case for increasing the efficiency of the brakes from minimum 500 Newtons to say 750 Newtons, but poor brakes just make you slower on a twisty technical course anyway.
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight I don't know why we had to have such a wide minimum track width and such a narrow maximum overall width. I suggest these should be changed to Minimum 700mm track and maximum 1300mm wide overall.
Why oh why did we say that the tyres must be of minimum 35mm section width? Surely it should be up to the competitor/designer to decide what tyres to fit and what compromise to seek between low drag and good cornering & braking ability.
I'm sure more technical people than me will have views and I suggest we should attempt to have something workable sorted by Christmas. ???
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Oct 17, 2008 21:41:04 GMT
Absolutely agree with you there. I think the current rules are far too restrictive and act as a significant barrier to entry. I've shown the National Rules to teams up here in Catterline, and there is just no interest at all. It's a shame, really, as we had 26 carties this year - all perfectly reasonable machines and built to an acceptable standard as far as safety goes - but not one of them would qualify for National class. Belchford had over 30 entries this year, with just 6 conforming to National spec'. Just think about the number of potential competitors for a National Champs that are being excluded for the sake of a few cm and an couple of Kg! I'd heartily support any moves to relax or remove all of the restrictions you've mentioned. The maximum weight is especially restrictive and should be much higher. In addition to your suggestions, I have a couple more observations; 1) I think it's worth thinking about the way the rules affect the way you have to run the competition. Setting a max' weight for driver and cartie means you have to weigh everyone before they set off, which adds to the workload on the day. I don't know about the rest of you, but I reckon we have quite enough to do during the day as it is, and I think you'd achieve the same aim while removing a lot of work by setting a maximum dry weight of - say - 100Kg. That way you only have to weigh the cartie when you scrutineer it. 2) I understand the thinking on making the brakes more effective, but I'm not convinced its necessary to increase the limit. I think 50KgF is entirely adequate. Brakes that will hold 50KgF are more than capable of locking the wheels quite easily as it is, so any braking force above that is wasted anyway. At Catterline we have a maximum weight of about 100Kg, although most carties come in around 50-60Kg. We test the brakes up to 40KgF, and none of them have any problem in stopping. In fact if anything the ones with the fiercest brakes can be the biggest problem as they sometime lock a wheel or two and lose control under heavy braking. 3) Roll bars and harnesses add significant difficulty to designing and building a cartie. I would suggest that they should only be required in carties where the driver is enclosed within the machine. i.e. - If you are enclosed, then you must have a roll bar.
- If you have a roll bar, you must be strapped in.
- If you are not enclosed and you do not have a roll bar, you must NOT be strapped in.
There is a precedent for this in the original Goodwood FOS rules, which had two classes - Streamliner and Roadster - which were fully faired and open cockpit respectively. Roll bars and harnesses were mandatory in streamliners and forbidden in roadsters. Roadster drivers would need good protective clothing though - ideally full leathers and a proper lid. I don't know whether two separate classes are actually required as I'm not sure that the more streamlined but also more complex and heavier streamliners would be significantly faster than the lighter roadsters, but the option of building one or the other would make it easier for new teams to get involved. Thanks for opening up the debate, grump. Let's see if we can work out a realistic set up construction rules and have a proper National Championship next year, with points, trophys, brolly girls and everything. :-)
|
|
|
Post by gravitygrump on Oct 20, 2008 8:07:08 GMT
Thanks, Catterlinecarties for your thoughts.
I like your ideas, especially those relating to rollbars, seat belts, etc. I also think there's merit in a maximum dry weight idea, especially if we aim to drive more "technical" courses, requiring good braking and steering to do well, as these courses don't automatically favour the heavier cart over the lighter.
Not sure about brakes, although I do take your point about brakes locking at 50kgF on some carts, especially those with brakes on back wheels only . I'm thinking about this one from the point of view of the course designer who wants to ensure reasonable safety for any spectators and has a restricted stopping area at the end of the course, rather than trying to make carts easier to race. Certainly if I build a new cart for next season I'll do my best to make sure it has good brakes so I don't have to use them until I'm almost on the corner.
We could really do with getting all event organiser & rule setters to join this debate ASAP so that we can work something out before the end of the year and we all know what we need to do when spending the dark nights building.
|
|
|
Post by gravitygrump on Oct 23, 2008 8:07:21 GMT
???
Based on ideas expressed so far, I suggest the following as a framework for further discussion, with a view to adopting an agreed set of rules by the end of November:
DESIGN AND SAFETY RULES NATIONAL SOAPBOX CHAMPIONSHIP CLASS 2009 (DRAFT 23 OCTOBER 2008)
APPLICATION OF RULES:
The rules and regulations are intended, as far as reasonably possible, to ensure the safety of competitors and spectators. They must therefore be interpreted in that spirit. In all matters relating to these rules the decisions of scrutineers and event organisers will be final.
DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHT:
Maximum overall length - 2300mm
Maximum overall width - 1500mm
Minimum track width - 700mm
Minimum wheel diameter - 200mm
Maximum weight of vehicle and ballast - 100kg
WHEELS:
Vehicles must have at least 4 wheels.
The wheels must all remain in contact with the ground during normal running.
The wheels must be fixed to a minimum of two axles, or when stub axles are used these must be employed in opposed pairs.
BRAKES:
The vehicle must have braking on at least 2 wheels on the same axle.
The brakes must be capable of holding the vehicle on a dry horizontal road surface, when laden with driver and any ballast, against a horizontal load of 500 Newtons (50kg) exerted on the front towing eye.
The brakes must be designed such that failure of the brake operating on one wheel does not result in complete failure of the braking system.
STEERING:
Must not have excessive free play or any characteristic tending to promote instability.
DRIVING POSITION:
The driver will ride alone, feet first.
BODYWORK AND SAFETY FEATURES:
There must be no sharp edges or protrusions either inside or outside the vehicle.
No glass, Perspex or other materials that would shatter or cause injuries to drivers and spectators in the event of a crash can be used in the construction of the vehicle.
Any steering column, brake lever or other protrusion must be designed and fitted such that puncture injuries cannot happen.
Bodywork and controls must not impede the driver in exiting the vehicle unaided.
Any doors or hatches required for driver access must be readily operated from both inside and outside the vehicle without the use of tools.
Vehicles must be fitted a towing eye at the front. To fit the organisers’ towing equipment this must be made of steel bar of between 6mm and 8mm diameter and have a minimum internal diameter of 12mm. The towing eye must be positioned to allow a tow rope to pass freely beneath the vehicle to the rear without fouling the steering or braking systems.
If any part of the vehicle other than the seat back, upper parts of the wheels and the steering wheel/bar together with a central supporting column for this is higher than the hips of the driver when he/she is seated normally in the vehicle the following safety devices must be fitted and used: • A substantial diagonally braced rollover bar that extends a minimum 50mm above the helmet of the tallest driver in the team when he/she is seated normally. • A second bar that extends a minimum of 25mm above the driver’s hands when these are at the 12 o’clock position on the steering bar or wheel • A car-standard seatbelt with a minimum four-point fixing to the vehicle.
If no rollover bar is fitted the driver must not wear a seat belt or any other form of restraint to attach him/her to the vehicle.
BALLAST:
Any removable ballast must be water only, contained in one or more closed flexible plastic tank.
Any ballast containers must be fixed securely to the vehicle.
CLOTHING:
Drivers must wear modern motorcycle safety helmets, suitable protective clothing gloves and robust footwear.
SPORTING RULES:
The Sporting rules will be determined by the organisers of individual competitions to take account of local conditions.
I look forward to receiving constructive criticism and other ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Oct 23, 2008 20:59:47 GMT
Sounds pretty reasonable to me, but I hope we get some input from a few others.
Can't wait to get at the roll cage with my angle grinder.... :-D
|
|
|
Post by richardeblack on Oct 25, 2008 0:51:11 GMT
Hello I think gravitygrump has covered most of my concerns. I don't think that the black Honda at Cadwell constituded a cart you would be thrown clear of. Too much bodywork. ggs suggestion covers that well. I like the requirement for a central support only for any steering mechanism. Anything else would stop the driver being thrown clear. I like the idea of doing away with weighing on the event. I am a little bit concerned about not having a total weight though as on courses with any flat sections and not much in the way of tricky turns, additional weight would give an advantage as we found on our Belchford course before we livened it up. I am also not sure about just having two wheel braking on potentially very heavy carts. If the brakes were on the axle with least weight and thin tyres, you could have a situation where the wheels locked up, therefore giving little braking effect. Over all, however, I am in support of (effectively) removing the weight limit for Belchford as lighter weight is definitely an advantage so I suspect that anyone planning to try for a fast time will be running a light cart but it gives heavier drivers an oportunity to compete. I will spend some more time thinking about it when I am not so tired. Thanks for starting the converstation. Cheers, Richard.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Oct 26, 2008 22:52:57 GMT
The "black Honda", by the way, is shown below. It ran at Cadwell at the start of this year and was comfortably the fastest machine on the hill, taking first place by a clear margin. However, it highlights something about the rules which I think is important, which is that if we're going to have them then we have to enforce them. I put a lot of effort into modifying my cart to comply with the Cadwell requirement that "a substantial diagonally braced rollover bar must be fitted such that it extends a minimum of 35mm above the driver’s helmet". I could've saved myself a lot of time, money and effort if I'd known that they weren't actually going to bother to enforce that rule Whatever rules we adopt have got to be rules that we're all comfortable with enforcing consistently and fairly - even to the point of actually disqualifying noncompliant carties - otherwise there is just no point in having them.
|
|
|
Post by gravitygrump on Oct 27, 2008 14:21:35 GMT
I agree with catterlinecarties that any rules we have must be enforced.
The different rules adopted by organisers at the moment makes it hard for competitors to run at more than one event. It also makes it difficult for organisers, who generally want people to compete, to disqualify people who have made a big effort to attend, having brought with them a cart that doesn't fit the letter of their rules, but was allowed to run elsewhere.
I suspect most organisers fudge the issue and would allow someone to run but not win any prizes if their cart is reasonably safe and not a danger to the innocent spectator. It would however be a lot easier to enforce the rules if there weren't so many of them in the first place and they were accepted by all organisers. This would also stop the grumbles from competitors who bother to make sure their carts comply with the local rules before they turn up to race
I would welcome any suggestions for further pruning of the rules from the draft I posted a few days ago, but I can't see where we can free them up further without making things so open that it would be virtually impossible to design a course for all entered carts to run on safely
|
|
|
Post by Ian r on Oct 28, 2008 9:55:20 GMT
Hi, maybe we could do away with the minimum track width & the minimum wheel size rules? Realistically, the vehicle needs to be wide enough to be stable in the corners, and wheel size will be dictated by commercial availabiltity. I realise that this would make a street luge with a skate brake potentially race legal ! Especially if the roll bar / no roll bar proposal is taken onboard. Though does the steering comply with the 'not having any characteristics promoting instability'? Speed wobble anyone? And I'm not sure if it'd meet the 500 newton braking force req'd. But is this the way we want soapbox (or should the be gravity racing?) to go? Or is a separate class the way to continue? I suspect that on most courses the fastest soapboxes would slightly outperform a luge (given a push start). But if we wanna keep 'em seperate, whats the best rules to do it with? I'm pretty sure lugers will not want to race head to head with a 170kg plus soapbox. lol.
|
|
|
Post by will on Oct 29, 2008 9:24:42 GMT
I'm pretty sure lugers will not want to race head to head with a 170kg plus soapbox. lol. i would!
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 29, 2008 22:03:21 GMT
With being involved in gravity soapbox racing for a couple of years now and having competed at most venues over the country, such as Cadwell, Scammonden Dam, Richards Castle, Mansell Lacy, Eastbourne, and Belchford, I think my team mate and I are experienced enough to add a few comments about the rules and regulations for the sport. Firstly, heaviest is not necessarily fastest. In a straight downhill drag race, yes maybe, but add a few corners or chicanes and the speed the heavier cart has built up before the corner has to be scrubbed off harder and is never picked up again. The lighter cart can basicly glide round the corner scrubbing off less speed. 180kg for cart and driver and ballast seems adequate to us and weighing should be done immediately after each run to prevent weight being sneakily added at the start line.Secondly, the size of the wheels should be down to the individual as we learnt. Smaller fatter wheels will mean you have a higher centre of gravity with the chance of rolling over increased ( see my crash at Scammonden from the links), but the cornering forces are less than on bigger thinner wheels. The length and width of the cart should be from a minimum to a maximum but again it it depends on the design of the course as to which is best. Tighter corners and chicanes, shorter wheelbase and narrower carts will fair better. We believe safety is of paramount importance and all carts, buggies, soapboxes, call them what you want, should have roll bars and seatbelts as compulsory (again from personal experience). Brakes should be designed that if on rear wheel braking both wheels must be independantly braked incase one fails, so allowing steering. Front wheel braking must must have rear back-up aswell. The rest of the rules etc should be obvious with no exceptions such as "fudging" as suggested by gravitygrump. That winning illegal £30,000 Honda at Cadwell was only 3 seconds faster than our 2nd placed wheely bin costing a mere £400.( Not that we're bitter) Anyway here's hoping things do get sanctioned and we can get some more decent venues to get a championship up and running. Happy soapboxing.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Oct 30, 2008 0:41:41 GMT
So when are you going to come up to Catterline then, dave?
I'm really glad we're making an effort to open up the national rules and get more carties competing at races up and down the country, but I don't think we'll ever get standard set of rules that all events will accept, and nor should we. I think "National" carties will run alongside "Local" carties for the forseeable future. I would hope that events would have the sense not to implement mutually exclusive rules, however.
What I would love to see is carties competing in the National class getting championship points at each event, with an overall winner being declared at the end of the year.
"Fudging" for local rules is entirely up to individual events, and indeed we have a rule at Catterline that explicitly allows carties that we think are basically safe to take part regardless of whether they are strictly compliant, but without being eligible for any prizes/points, and I think that's a reasonable position to take.
I'm afraid I strongly disagree with mandatory roll bars and seatbelts, as I think it is a significant barrier to taking part and is not justified by the supposed increase in safety. We're not engineers (well - I'm not), and we don't have the facility to crash test our carties to check they maintain their integrity if they roll, so there is no evidence that we actually have made our machines any safer. I don't see why we have to make life so difficult for ourselves when other gravity sports do not. Standup? No roll bars. Streetluge? No roll bars. G-Bike? No roll bars. Butt Board? No roll bars. And while we're thinking about it - cycle racing, downhill MTB, BMX racing, motocross, motorcycle racing, motorcycle sidecar, skiing... No rollbars at all, and some of them going a darn sight faster than we are.
I take your point about your personal experience being different, and I think we should allow individual's personal experiences to inform the decision they make. If you want a roll bar, you go ahead and fit one. But if, like me, you'd rather bale out and trust your leathers and helmet, then I don't see that there is any problem in that from a safety point of view. I like the new proposals because they do just that.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 30, 2008 20:45:43 GMT
Ok. Everybodys entitled to their opinion but when you are hurtling down a hill four at a time, as Cadwell are planning, I would sooner be strapped into my soapbox if it crashed than bail out and risk getting run over by another. The comparrison to the other sports mentioned holds no weight, as you sit on them rather than in them as you do with four wheels. There may be some exceptions to this like the street luge etc but I dont think we will be racing against those. Believe me, it hurts when you hit the tarmac upside down at 40 mph. Having said this, everybody should sign a waiver form and except that they may get hurt. New builders be wary. My team mate and I believe that it is horses for courses as bigger fatter stronger wheels may fare well at one venue where thinner wheels do better at another. It could take some feat of engineering and expense to build one to suit all. Its a case of suck it and see and learn. At least I have given food for thought and we might be able to thrash some sort of rules and regs out to get this show up and running. I hope to make Catterline for the 2009 event if it does not clash with another event like this year. Happy soapboxing.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Oct 30, 2008 23:10:06 GMT
Shame you couldn't make it this year, but we'd be delighted to see you in Scotland next year,with or without rollbars... What event did Catterline clash with? I've tried to gather as many dates together as early as possible and publish them on this site and elsewhere in the hope that we can avoid date collisions if at all possible. Unfortunately, we're pretty much stuck with our date as it's tied to our village gala and so timed to avoid other significant local events. Incidentally, I'm a biker so I know exactly what it feels like to go down the road on my a**e :-( The same thing goes through my head every time - "Oh bu**er, this is going to cost a fortune..."
|
|
|
Post by barry on Oct 31, 2008 20:45:58 GMT
:-/Hi, Barry here, Dave’s team mate. You guys do a great job of organising and running these events, here are some ideas I come up with for discussion! For fear of starting a team “Tiff” I do not necessarily agree with Dave on all his points. Let me expand, Yes firstly safety is paramount and that I don’t dispute and I appreciate his personal experience in the “painful slide along on your head at 40 MPH” crashing department, BUT, I have raced karts (the engine type) for 20 years and they don’t have roll bars or seat belts! I think the main difference is you tend to be ON a kart rather than IN it. As has been said Luge, Butt boards, gravity bikes etc do not have roll bars or seat belts but again you are ON them not IN them. Therefore if you adopted some form of discrimination between ON or IN then you would have a starting point for the bar, belt scenario! How this could be decided may be another topic for debate but what about something along these lines, IF the driver of the soapbox could demonstrate to the scrutineers that He or She could “bail out” of their soapbox without the use of their arms / hands (ie just stand up or roll out) then it is an ON machine not an IN machine. Get the idea? Obviously if you want to fit the belt, bar thing them you should be allowed to do so, but not made to do so under this sort of ruling. Next thing is about the rules “fudging” debate, I think that so long as it,s safe then let it run But no point or prizes, Simple. I don’t wholly agree with the wheel size thing that some are adopting, yes we need a max size or it gets sily, but why a min size? I know it may mean going slower but maybe that’s all some people have or can afford! Not everyone can spend spend spend or have a sponsor. If you want to run skate wheel then so long as it,s safe then why not? What we need is bums on seats if this going to work. CAN OF WORMS? Thanks Barry
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Oct 31, 2008 23:23:12 GMT
Absolutely agree with you about the "bums on seats" thing. I think the proposed changes actually do what you suggest, as that is the whole point about the "nothing above the hips" stuff.
I couldn't understand why Dave rejected my analogies with other similar sports, and it took me while to understand what he meant about being "on" rather than "in", but it came to me earlier today and - believe it or not - I actually spent a few minutes looking at pictures of karts trying to see what the rules were there. I think I kind of agree with both of you, in that roll bars and harnesses are absolutely necessary in carties you are "in", but my point is that there are plenty of perfectly safe unfaired carties around that you will part company with pretty quickly should things go wrong, and I don't think they need rollbars and harnesses unless the team actually wants to fit them.
|
|
|
Post by richardeblack on Nov 1, 2008 1:08:46 GMT
Hello, Dick here, I agree completely about "fudging" of rules. We decided this year at Belchford that carts that didn't comply but were safe otherwise could race but weren't eligible for prizes. Most people were happy with that. My understanding was that the Honda at Cadwell ran under that assumption and were happy with it. I think Peter's suggestion about no structure above hip height apart from wheels and central steering support covers the "on" versus "in" debate. I will still definitely want to be in and strapped in with roll bar etc. (I have been a motorcyclist since 1968 so I also know about hitting the ground hard and fast). My bottom line on rules is no weight limit, but carts above a certain weight need 4 wheel braking and possibly a higher braking force. At Belchford some redundancy must be built into braking system. This is not so important at courses like Cadwell where brake failure is not such a problem due to large run off areas. No restrictions on wheel size, probably minimum track and wheelbase to promote stability. Course layout can be used to eliminate advantages due to high weight. I do feel strongly that we need to ensure the carts racing are structurally sound. We had to fail a couple at scrutineering at Belchford which were clearly unsafe. The owners were very happy with our decision when we demonstrated just how dangerous they could be. One team redesigned their cart and participated with complete safety, the other withdrew with the intention of building something better next year. It does look like there is quite a lot of concensus on this and the main thing is it needs to be fun. It is not big money formula 1. Lets enjoy ourselves and not get bogged down with minutae. Off to bed now. Have fun, Dick.
|
|
|
Post by gravitygrump on Nov 1, 2008 9:02:03 GMT
Great to see interest from Dave, Barry, Ian and Will. Just for interest, the current "National" rules can be seen as part of the 2008 Belchford rules at: www.belchford.org.uk/2008%20RULES.pdfI think Ian's points are interesting -why bother specifying a minimum track width? It's just another thing for organisers to worry about checking and if people want to risk falling over at the first corner, then perhaps it's up to them to risk it, not the rule makers to impose a nanny rule to keep them safe. I reckon it would be quite hard to build a cart you could sit in that's less than 600 wide in any case. Ian's question about the need to keep classes for soapboxes separate from luges is also interesting - My view is that they are so different at the moment that they have to be separate, otherwise why have separate classes for butt board, skateboard, G-bike and luge? For a bit of fun it would perhaps be possible to race the two types together at some venues such as Cadwell where there's plenty of space, but I don't see a time trial format event combining the classes working. Organisers running races for several classes could perhaps offer a prize for the fastest competitor in any class, but that's really a different question. I can also see sense in Barry's point about wheel size. This is a hangover from wanting carts to be clearly different from street luges, so I suppose it's a philosophical point really. There is no other reason for a minimum wheel size, except perhaps the practicality of fitting adequate brakes - comments anyone? - Just another thought though - some soapbox courses are too poorly surfaced for luges, but soapboxes are able to run safely at speed because they have larger wheels. On the question of being strapped in versus being free to fall off, I'm firmly with Dave and Dick, but if someone would be more comfortable unrestrained, I have no problem with their choice and I think the draft rule accommodate both views reasonably well. I can certainly see some situations where there would be a competitive advantage in being able to lie flat on your back down a long straight and climb off the side of the cart in the corners, but personally, I don't think I'm quite that desperate to win. Just one more thought for the moment: When we have built carts, Dick and I have been aware of the possible danger of getting our hands or clothing wrapped up in the spokes of the back wheels in the event of a high speed excursion from the track - do we need to have a rule to make sure this doesn't happen, such as insisting on rear wheels being fitted with some form of cover over the spokes, or am I just being a softy?
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Nov 1, 2008 9:49:50 GMT
I can certainly see some situations where there would be a competitive advantage in being able to lie flat on your back down a long straight and climb off the side of the cart in the corners You've just described my normal driving style there!
|
|
|
Post by dave on Nov 1, 2008 13:57:38 GMT
Correct me if I am wrong, but unless it is a dedidicated soapbox event like Belchford, the competitions run at Catterline, Mansell Lacy and Richards Castle seem to be an event run with or alongside the town or village carnival. Cadwell and Eastbourne (and Scammonden when it was run) are gravity sports festivals. I feel that we should not try to overrule the organisers of these "smaller" events and if you read paragraph C2 of the Belchford rules, it basicaly states the organisers have the final say about everthing with no appeal. This should be upheld across the board, but it should not stop us forging some sort of championship rules to run alongside. As Dick says it needs to be fun. But, when you have a championship to fight for there is going to be competition, rivalry antagonism etc otherwise why bother entering it. Whatever we come up with somebody is not going to like or they are going to pick fault with it. So I suggest everyone who is interested in competing in a championship draws up their ideas of rules, regs, size, track ,wheelbase etc, we can utilize these to compose a set to suit. Barry and myself have the domain name ukgsb.co.uk (united kingdom gravity soapbox) which we were going to organise a web site. But, due to us not having the knowhow or time, it never got off the ground. So if there is anyone out there who would like a go, please feel free to let me know. I will now have a word with Barry and over the next week or so we will try and come up with our ideas for rules. Happy soapboxing.
|
|