and i volunteer to try.
-james
-----Original Message-----
From: James Creasy <jcre@pacbell.net>
>hell, lets just try to flip it and see what happens!
>
>-James "flipped a chevette!" Creasy
>Slip Angle Racing www.klio.net/cobra
>BAPOC www.klio.net/probe
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keith Hearn <khearn@Legato.COM>
>
>>
>>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
>>>
>>
>>
>
|