What's the Coaming Side Rule Status

[Composite Specialties]

The thing to remember with these safety rules are the materials used. I have no difintive data but a long time ago I did a high school science fair project on how these materials held up. Fiberglass and Kevlar gave way quite a bit (with Kevlar giving way the most) before they eventually broke. Carbonfiber had a higher tolerance to stress but snapped like a twig. All three materials were epoxied to a piece of composite that was the same thickness for all the tests. The composite was also tested by itself. Obviously the composite was much weaker than the composite pieces with material on them.

The thing to remember is that composite is much weaker than wood. If these materials are applied to wood than the wood is obviously much stronger than it once was. So from my primitive experiment about 7-8 years ago I would have to say that these materials could help from cockpit sides being penetrated but you will probably also see more injuries to drivers getting tossed from boats, hitting the cockpit sides on the way out. The question then becomes what happens more, boats penetrating cockpit sides, or drivers falling out? I know I went all year seeing 1 collision, where the cockpit sides were not penetrated and both drivers were ok after being tossed from their boats, and about 6 other drivers get tossed from their boat (including me once at Thompson, CT) and 3 of those drivers breaking a cockpit side on their way out, and 1 of the three getting seriously hurt (and that was from a prop).

Making a rule requiring these materials can add to more injuries, and this is coming from a guy that owns and builds carbon boats. In my next composite boats I will have either fiberglass or kevlar cockpit sides on composite and not carbon. I feel that this combination would be ideal for driver protection as long as it is done properly, which cannot be reinforced by a rule in APBA unless you have certified people making them. And that bring up the cost issue which I do not want to debate.

"The thing to remember is that composite is much weaker than wood."???????

The definition of composites: a conceptual whole made up of complicated and related parts.

If you are refering to foam core or Balsa core as being weaker alone, you are correct but they are solely designed to be combined with other factors forming a COMPOSITE structure which is much, much stronger than any WOOD part of equal specs.

I would advise anyone to do your own research and testing on Composites vs wood sides and DO NOT take what people post on these form as the guide line to follow. Anyone can buy some kevlar or carbon and epoxy it to wood or foam and call it a composite cockpit side but some of us have performed our own test and choose to protect our own drivers and our own customers. I follow the UIM Rule: 522.02 as my guideline.

[14J]

UIM as cleary defined and mandated rules for both pickles and cock pit sides that apply to kneel down and lay down hydro’s (Rule: 522.02). By no means am I knowledgeable on this topic but I would image, or at least hope, that there is data supporting the rules implemented by an International governing body.

[BP125V]

you're missing the point...(pun intended)

For 2 yrs, I have been beating my **** head against the brick wall. WHY!?!? To try and make my sport and my family safer. You guys don't want safer, unless it has $250,000 worth of research data to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why, because it will never happen to you, right? And yes, only one guy got pickled - me. I thought it would never happen either!

I guess you all are like Nascar. Adam Petty dies, nothing. Kenny Irwin dies, nothing. Dale Earnhart dies - you get the car of tomorrow, safer barriers, hans device and many others.
So who has to get hurt next? Who is our Dale Earnhart that when something happens and they get hurt, you decide it might not hurt your wallet that much to do something?

Brian,

I am not against this because it might cost me more money, I don't race hydros anyways. I am against it because I think that by implementing this we might be making stronger "ramps" and actually INCREASING the risk for injury.

Bill

[kws]

i just saw a really good program on the history channel a big segment was on racing safety. In the formula cars they had put a composite BAR in both sides of the cars to protect the drivers from tbone crashes.it really didnt work (after mucho dollars and slo-mo cameras ect.) it was determined that bar only funneled the penetration to the area between the bar and the pan of the cars and did nothing to improve survivability of the t-bone crashes.
one of the lead investagators said that while it seems very apparent in hindsite it was not realized at first. if you are going to do this,the bar must wrap clear around the pan and over the top of the driver. hence the following "encaplulated cocoon" completely surounding the driver. but still this only works if the driver is securely strapped to the frame work of that cocoon
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY!
I think about Flips like A Olson a few years ago she broke the side of the boat verticaly from the top down to the deck on the right side and from the look of her side i dont believe her ribs would of with stood the impact if the side of the boat had not given way. As has been stated the majority of our crashes do not involve t-bone crashes they involve flips and spills and i dont want to do anything to increase the risk in these wrecks to reduce risk in the 1 out of a thousand crashes

[crankbearing]

post the rule

"The thing to remember is that composite is much weaker than wood."???????

The definition of composites: a conceptual whole made up of complicated and related parts.

If you are refering to foam core or Balsa core as being weaker alone, you are correct but they are solely designed to be combined with other factors forming a COMPOSITE structure which is much, much stronger than any WOOD part of equal specs.

I would advise anyone to do your own research and testing on Composites vs wood sides and DO NOT take what people post on these form as the guide line to follow. Anyone can buy some kevlar or carbon and epoxy it to wood or foam and call it a composite cockpit side but some of us have performed our own test and choose to protect our own drivers and our own customers. I follow the UIM Rule: 522.02 as my guideline.

Marc,

Can you post the rule and I agree that we should not take others words for it and if things have been tested then great. I did not want to start a big long post on safety, I just want to know that the boat I am building for my customer will be LEGAL in two weeks after the convention.

Regards,

[14J]

Marc,

Can you post the rule and I agree that we should not take others words for it and if things have been tested then great. I did not want to start a big long post on safety, I just want to know that the boat I am building for my customer will be LEGAL in two weeks after the convention.

Regards,

522.02

All hydroplane hulls in classes O 250, O 350, OSY 400 must have reinforced
side protection as shown in the sketches. All dimensions are minimum unless
stated. Measurements taken from inside of hull from solid floor on which the
driver lays or kneels (no cushions). Reduction to the front side panel is permitted for vision or to have vision panel installed. On kneelers the amount of cut out to keep stabilisation is as per drawings and no reduction at front.
Reinforcing must be two layers of 315 grm Aramid Fibre (Kevlar) or comparable
material. This should be bonded to clean wood free of varnish paint etc.
All hydroplane hulls with pickle forks must have sponson leading edges of a
rounded surface of at least 50 mm diameter in one direction. If extensions of the pickle forks are used, it must have deformable pickle forks for a minimum length to give an exposed rounded surface when removed of at least 50 mm diameter in one direction.

[Composite Specialties]

2008 Version

The only change to that UIM rule for 2008 is the word addition of wood and/or Foam Core for use in construction of the sandwiched cockpit side.

The kevlar/carbon/cloth that rolls onto the decks is for retrofits only.

[stu_racing]

Marc, you are correct in my mistake. Instead of composite I meant foam core.
And although my experiment from a number of years ago is not the best data, I haven't seen any results (even if they are as broad as mine) in the last 2 years of discussion. If anyone has any better data out there than I have then maybe I'll believe you in thinking this rule would help the sport. But since I am the only one that has presented findings from a formal experiment, I'll stick with being against this rule.
And Dave, sorry to hijack this thread but after more than a year of others bickering I am tired of being quiet, hoping that a more boat racing specific experiment would have been conducted/presented.

[99R]

What about honeycomb core vs foam core?

[14-H]

Data!?!? *** What data did we have when we mandated kevlar sleves and pants? What data caused 99% of drivers to switch over to full face helmets?
***

Brian: Kevlar-mandated: Apparently you are not aware of the testing the Dewalds did before this rule was implemented. That data is probably mostly responsible for the rule being passed.

Full-faced helmets: These are not mandatory. Actually this point is quite interesting in this discussion. There is some legitimate disagreement as to whether open or closed-faced helmets are safer. Ask one of the Hauensteins or Andy Hansen about this. The point here is, there isn't a universal agreement as to which is safer and thus neither is mandated by rule.

[14-H]

Look at the avatars with hydros on the posts on this thread. There is more driver showing vertically than there is boat. ***
Bill

can't wait for Detroit

Except Burdick's Avatar...

[14-H]

For 2 yrs, I have been beating my **** head against the brick wall. WHY!?!? To try and make my sport and my family safer. You guys don't want safer, ***

Apparently you misunderstand the nature of the disagreement here. Not everyone agrees with you that reinforced sides will be safer in our type of racing. It might be safer in OPC where the driver is strapped in and cannot move and his whole body is surrounded by reinforcement; and it might be safer in Europe where nearly all of the drivers lie down in their cockpit and very little of the driver is exposed. That does not correlate, as BP125 so keenly points out, to what we do. (I like the puns, too, Bill).

I guess you all are like Nascar. Adam Petty dies, nothing. Kenny Irwin dies, nothing. Dale Earnhart dies - you get the car of tomorrow, safer barriers, hans device and many others.
So who has to get hurt next? ***

You are not correct about this. After Petty and Irwin were killed (within a few months at the same track), the track was completely redesigned.


Brian: this is not the Oprah Winfrey Show where decision are made on emotion. Calm down to see that there really is a legitimate disagreement about whether reinforced cockpits will be safer. If nothing else, your blood pressure will drop and, that too, is a safety concern. Eddie.

[racingfan]

Brian: Kevlar-mandated: Apparently you are not aware of the testing the Dewalds did before this rule was implemented. That data is probably mostly responsible for the rule being passed.

Ed,

How much did APBA pay the Dewalds for this testing data? Just wondering since your post to me earlier indicated that APBA always has to pay for testing data and that is why testing prior to rule changes would be costly and increase membership dues....

Oh sorry.....Im just being silly. Keep doing like you do it. Make a change and piss people off so they quit and then make another change to make the wrong change right in each class. All "correct" changes can just be a 5 year process. This is making sense now...sorry to bother you King Ed......

Your pal,
Mike

PS: Keep your gold card paid up. It will be smoking with my bar tab at Ocoee!!

[14-H]

Racer X

Mikey: Are you drinking Mike Ross' Pepsi this early? It is only 3:30 p.m. here.

I am arguing for 'no change', on this one, goof-ball!

Regarding the Dewald testing: You're right, that was gratuitous. Does this mean you will be the SORC's testing data supplier now?

Please make sure you aren't running your "Weasel Juice" fuel when you do the testing, though. Eddie.

[reed28n]

Safety

Safety is an emotional issue. To see everyone's post it seems that there two camps.

Camp 10 S - who thinks the subject is being ignored and he is beating his head against the wall .

Camp Others- that believe we are rushing into something just because Brian is beating his head against the wall.

All of this debate is healthy. Rounded pickles and cock pit sides are being discussed and we are attempting to get the best data available to make an informed decision. The last thing we want to do, is rush to something wrong--- just to say we did something.

I do not believe that this is the most immediate need but it will get the attention that it deserves because it is related to safety.

I applaud the people who have taken measures to improve the safety of their cock pit sides.

No one is preventing you from taking measures to protect yourself.