Yeah, that old Toyo van also had an 88(!) inch wheelbase and utilized the
driver's legs as an integral part of the energy absorbing crush zones.
Friends who owned one tell me that the fear of rolling over was not
reserved for autox's. A stiff crosswind was usually enough to do the trick.
I'll bet the guilty conscience of the engineers who designed that van drove
them to put the engine *under* the floor in the Previa.
Call it a knee-jerk reaction, but I just hate SUV's. The bottom line is
that I know Carl and he's not going to go out there and flip the family
Previa. That I can assure you. I know the Previa isn't an SUV, but it is
tall. I just don't think we should start giving even the "car based" SUV
owners the idea that Solo II is just another "Extreme Sport" for their
"Active Lifestyles". And I'm sure Carl agrees!:)
Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Merritt [SMTP:cmerritt@ati.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 9:58 PM
> To: 'Derek Butts'; 'kevin_stevens@hotmail.com'
> Cc: ba-autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: RE: Vehicle eligibility...
>
> Sadly I can't find any measurement data on the old Toyota van, which also
> had a common propensity to blow up and/or catch on fire, but that's
> another
> story...
>
> Hey Kevin! Where did you get those track & height numbers on all those
> vehicles so fast?
>
> -Carl
>
>
> > ----------
> > From: Derek Butts[SMTP:pnc1@earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 4:07 PM
> > To: Bill Hamburgen 650-617-3329 FAX -3374
> > Cc: ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: Vehicle eligibility...
> >
> > In fairness to this discussion the Toyota Van I drove had 175,000 miles
> on
> > it
> > with the original shocks and crappy tires. I think it was a 1989 with
> the
> > narrower track and higher center of gravity. The Previa is a later
> model
> > Toyota van with a wider track and wheelbase.
> >
> > Sorry, my mistake - the Previa does look like a turtle, though : )
> > -Derek
> >
> > Maybe we should institute a policy that the Safety Steward test drives
> the
> > proposed vehicle at speed and if it rolls they simply hand back the keys
> > to the
> > owner and say "this vehicle is not acceptable for Solo II" : )
> >
> > Bill Hamburgen 650-617-3329 FAX -3374 wrote:
> >
> > > I'd been holding off weighing in on this, but I can't any longer.
> > > Derek Butts said:
> > >
> > > > I have driven this van before. We used to have one as a parts van.
> > > > If autocrossed it will end up like an upside down turtle....
> > >
> > > I have both autocrossed my Previa and been up on two wheels in my GTI.
> > >
> > > My Previa is an Altrak, with a rear sway bar, good shocks, and
> slightly
> > > lower than stock due to low profile tires (215/60-15). It handles
> > better
> > > than a lot of sedans. I autocrossed it once at an SFR event (at
> Alameda
> > > NAS about 4 years ago) and my time put me in the top 80% of the entire
> > > field. Beat a Porsche, a Vette, and a Tiger among others. Look it
> up.
> > >
> > > My GTI was running in ES on BFG R1s at another SFR event. My
> co-driver
> > > sawed the wheel trying to catch a spin and got us up on two wheels.
> > > I couldn't tell, but Katie Elder and other reliable witnesses said
> they
> > > saw air under the tires. I did not like this. I lowered the car
> 1.25",
> > > beefed up sway bars and moved to DSP. The car is now totally
> > > uncompetitive, but is safer and a lot more fun to drive.
> > >
> > > What's the point? That vehicle/tire combos that roll with some
> > regularity,
> > > such as race rubber clad but otherwise stock VWs, BMWs, and various
> > > econoboxes, are allowed to run events, but others that *may* be even
> > less
> > > prone to rollover provoke a knee jerk reaction like, "A Previa is not
> an
> > > acceptable vehicle for Solo II"
> > >
> > > My suggestion: you can't easily measure CG during tech, but you can
> > > measure outside dimensions. CG height can be conservatively
> > approximated
> > > as the midpoint between ground clearance (C) and height (H). Divide
> the
> > > estimated CG height by the track width (T) and use that ratio as a
> > > stability index.
> > > C + H
> > > ----- = stability index
> > > T
> > >
> > > Pick a cutoff stability index that would exclude vehicles already
> known
> > > to have a propensity to turn turtle (VWs, 3 series BMWs, etc).
> > > And encourage vehicles over that ratio be excluded by the safety
> steward
> > > on stability grounds, unless the vehicle is classed in the rulebook.
> > > Perhaps my Previa could have been excluded on under this rule. So be
> > it.
> > >
> > > Note that lowering a vehicle reduces both C and H. This correlates
> well
> > > with what we all know intuitively.
> > >
> > > I'm not claiming this formula is perfect, but I think it's better than
> > > excluding vehicles based on appearance.
> > >
> > > /Bill
> >
> >
> >
|