Structural Foam: is it covered under the CCR or HC rules?

[Thawley]

This thread on Honda-Tech raises the question of whether structural foam is legal in HC. http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1219064&postid=15151560#15151560 Since everyone over there is just guessing and no NASA officials have chimmed in, i thought i'd ask over here.

 

Is foam covered under rule 17.2.b on chassis reinforcement? It's a pretty grey area, so it'd be nice to get an official answer on this.

 

Thanks,

 

Thawley

Edited April 21, 2005 by Guest

[BrianZ]

would you mind pasting that in here? I canot find a section 17.2.b on chassis reinforcement ...

[Thawley]

would you mind pasting that in here? I canot find a section 17.2.b on chassis reinforcement ...

That's what i get for quotinng another post without checking the book, myself...

 

HC 4.9.6 adds 30lbs to the minimum weight for additional stiffening from "cage braces", seam welding and additional cage welding at "any contact point". While it seems clear that the rules were written with welded tubes and gussets in mind, a good argument could be made to allow foam as a "cage brace" or extra bracing in general which is the obvious intent of the additional 30 pounds in the rule.

[civicrr]

This has come up a few times already. Not specifically allowed so therefore not legal per the letter of the law.

 

From a common sense standpoint, where the foam was applied would make a difference. If put into a door cavity to cut down on noise or protect the skin from caving in, does it matter? It doesn't add a performance advantage to the car. If used to somehow stiffen the chassis, then clearly it isn't legal.

[Thawley]

I'm not really arguing FOR it, just curious if there had been an "official ruling". Your door example bring up the use of foam for safety. Its use as a light weight means to decelerate mass could be a great addition to the overall safety of the driver's door area.

 

This for example, is the bee's knees, safety-wise..