Forum

Rule 5.5

Several competitors currently run panels that are not of 'equivalent strength' to the OEM part and hence it was suggested that the requirement for aftermarket panels to be of 'equivalent strength' is dropped.

Your thoughts?...
[Modified by: Jeremy Walker on 06 November 2008 17:13:55 ]

I think the rule needs to be split. Doors windscreen surrounds etc need to be equivilant strength but bonnets and guards don't
If we enforce the current rule then everyone's fibreglass bonnets are illegal!

Hi Darin what happens as in my case where my cert plate says fibreglass panels and so are road legal ?
[Modified by: stephen reed on November 07, 2008 11:42 AM]

It has nothing to do with road legal. It is to do with legal with reguards to our rules.
My thoughts are that there is a hole in the rule and by rights most peoples trucks should not pass scrutineering for something that we accept as normal. Therefore we need to update the rule accordingly. It shouldn't change anything unless everyone wants equivilant strength to stay.

If that isn't the case then if your bonnet isn't as strong as a factory steel one then you need to replace it! Obviously this wouldn't be a good move.

The other side of the equation is 'how light' can a component be? If a bonnet , for example, is allowed to have no effective strength, then what is its value in protecting people from injury if they fall on it or a liquid or object flies out of the engine area? Unless a strength value (or an equivalent) is applied then the whole thing becomes very difficult to manage and maintain a level of safety and fairness.
The rule also applies to windscreen surrounds etc ( because some older vehicles have very few replacement options) and if 'equivalent' is not specified, it again could pose a safety concern.

Even if a panel is deemed road legal, there is no reason that the rules can not specify a higher standard. This is a motor sport competition after all, where risks need to be managed.

Who is going to determine the strength of the parts in question?

I had carbon Kevlar frame and skins on my doors, we went back to standard as the side intrusion protection had been lost. We really neded to put more roll cage side intrusion bars in to compensate. I my case we didn't as egress became a problem. So its a trade of as the wieght you save in doors is lost to the cage and egress another wast of time.

Darryn, just curious, but was the side intrusion a certification issue or just personal safety concern?

Just had a thought! (really!) What about dropping equivalent strength and just requiring them to be LVVTA certified?

sounds smart to me Darin. If its LVVTA cert'ed then surely its "safe"

Should we talk with Steve Whitton about the compliance issues of epoxy laminates?

Talking with Steve maybe a good option but his aren't the only panels being used.

It would appear people have lost sight of why this is being discussed.
Everyone who currently has a fibreglass bonnett does NOT comply with this rule. So we either change the rule and remove the 'equivilant strength' statement , or evryone must get new bonnetts!
If we remove the 'equivalent strength' statement then we need to ensure aftermarket doors are still safe so adding a 'must be certified' clause to the doors rule solves that problem.
It will also remove any ambiguity around other door types.

So just to clarify Darin, are you suggesting that we remove the 'equivalent strength' bit from 5.5 and add an extra bit or new rule along the lines of... "Aftermarket doors must be LVVTA certified".

If so, that sounds like a reasonable solution. The only downfall is that anyone who currently has aftermarket doors but don't have them on their cert will need to get re-certified - which is quite a large sum of $'s just to keep the scrutineers happy with something that hadn't been an issue in the past. Maybe a grace period is needed?

Fibreglass replacement panels are legal and do not require certification, provided the OEM panels being replaced do not contribute to to the strength of the vehicle structure.

So the rule only needs to refer to fibreglass replacements that contribute to the strength of the vehicle structure.

I would just like to add that my hilux has just had its cert done by one of the fussyist certifiers around and there is NO mention anywhere (certplate or paperwork) about the fibreglass bonnet