Frankly, I don't have any experience with a Previa, so I have no clue as
to whether or not it's safe to autox. Does anyone out there who is
saying it's unsafe have an actual experience with it, or or we just
seeing knee-jerk reactions because it's a mini-van?
Kevin's numbers at least make me think it *might* be safe. How many of
those saying it's not safe realised that it's got a wider track
than a Camaro? If it's got a track that's wider than a Camaro, it
hardly falls into the "narrow track" category. I have no idea if it
falls into the "high center of gravity" category, but at this point
I'm not going to assume anything.
How about if someone with some experience takes the vehicle in
question out for a test drive and see how it feels? Who knows,
maybe it's safer than those Rabbits that regularly get several
inches of air under their rear wheels and have a history of
rolling in autocrosses, yet are still allowed to run.
Keith Hearn
'99 Miata 10AE "Sexy Sadie" the Sapphire Shark
B-Stock
Milpitas, CA
In message <4.3.2.7.0.20001018130914.02b50a20@derf.madams.com>, "Darren P. Mada
ms" writes:
> Ok, I'll bite... damnit... :)
>
> Isn't there a better way to predict rollover stability? Didn't this come
> up when that idiot at the insurance department or something used a formula
> similar to Kevin's numbers comparison (sorry Kevin, not a jab at you) and
> came to the conclusion that any SUV has a 95% chance of rolling over?
>
> It was disputed that even the height of the CofG does not have a
> substantial effect on rollover probability. I think it was also discussed
> on the national list that rear suspension and shock function at full (and
> over) compression and full extension contribute to a large portion of
> rollovers. I would think it would have to do more with roll centers and
> polar movement and inertia than just track/height.
>
> Now, whether you want to make that a requirement for vehicle eligibility is
> up for debate... and what other cars might be excluded (Larry's Focus? BMW
> 318ti's?) too...
>
> --D
>
> p.s. I wouldn't allow the Previa to run just on the "why push our luck"
> common sense rule, but you're right in that there's no specific rule. I
> don't have my rulebook handy but I'm sure there's an out for the Safety
> Steward or Solo Chief to override anything in the name of safety. Of
> course, then the action is protestable, but a PC will most likely agree
> with the chiefs.
>
> At 12:31 PM 10/18/00, Kevin Stevens wrote:
> > >A Previa is not an acceptable vehicle for Solo II.
> > >
> > >--John Kelly
> >
> >(paraphrased: "Ditto." -- Charlie Davis)
> >
> >I'm wondering about the grounds for these opinions? I don't particularly
> >care about the Previa, but let's look at it.
> >
> >What the (1999) rulebook says:
> >
> >=========================
> >3.1 ELIGIBLE VEHICLES
> >A Solo II Event is open to any vehicle that can pass safety inspection...
> >except that vehicles with wheelbases exceeding 116 inches may be excluded...
> >
> >Unstable vehicles with a high center of gravity and a narrow track must be
> >excluded (e.g. Suzuki Samurai, Jeep CJ series, and GEO Sidekick).
> >==========================
> >
> >Vehicle Track Height
> >Samurai 51.4 65.6
> >Wrangler 58.0 70.6
> >Sidekick 55.x 64.3
> >Previa 61.4 68.7
> >Camaro 60.6 51.8
> >
> >Clearly the Previa doesn't have a narrow track compared to anything. High
> >CG would have to be measured; however of note is that each of the exampled
> >vehicles are taller than they are wide. The Previa is two inches wider than
> >tall. It also carries its engine and drivetrain significantly lower than
> >most vehicles. Its wheelbase is 112.8 inches, the 4x4s range from 80-93.4.
> >
> >If we intend to exclude all minivans and SUVs, we better say so - the
> >rulebook quite carefully does not. If there's some more subjective criteria
> >y'all are using, what is it? I don't have enough experience with non-coupe
> >cars in autocross to have a valid opinion - I never see them run.
> >
> >KeS
>
|