This was brought to my attention this weekend. it is something that must be addressed.
Big
Pro Mod Front Bumpers
Guys,
This was a hot topic for you for awhile...anything on this lately? Can you come to any conclusions?
This was a hot topic for you for awhile...anything on this lately? Can you come to any conclusions?
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Big
Whats the opinion of you guys on the front bumper rule?
I like the idea of a minimum width of 16" to the outside of the frame. This measurement is made at the front of the front tires and at a height no higher than the top of the front tires. My wording is horrible, any ideas? I just want to finalize this and let the guys know.
I like the idea of a minimum width of 16" to the outside of the frame. This measurement is made at the front of the front tires and at a height no higher than the top of the front tires. My wording is horrible, any ideas? I just want to finalize this and let the guys know.
The rule already says: 16" inside to inside of an 1.5' framerail, so that means a minimum of 19" outside to outside where the bumper ends. The bumper must be loacted in front of the front tire, but with the bottom of the tube NOT above the tire.
Truly, the rule is already there and just needs to be enforced. The problem is, people just didn't foolw the rule. Shannon even admits never actually reading the rule, he just ran a bumper to the frint tire and that was that. I think too many people have done the same thing and IMHO, they need to be brought into line, not opening the rule up to fit them. The rule was there, was detailed and easy to measure...people just didn't follow it.
Truly, the rule is already there and just needs to be enforced. The problem is, people just didn't foolw the rule. Shannon even admits never actually reading the rule, he just ran a bumper to the frint tire and that was that. I think too many people have done the same thing and IMHO, they need to be brought into line, not opening the rule up to fit them. The rule was there, was detailed and easy to measure...people just didn't follow it.
I was fine with leaving it alone, I just thought the consensus was to change it. Then ENFORCE it and lets move on. If someone needs to change it to meet the rules, then so be it, thats part of racing. Most of us build new rigs every year anyway or at least modify them.
What we need is a clarification if the rule really does need to be re-written to be easier to understand? OR, does it really need to change for some reason, then let's look at changing it. We need a written suggestion on how the rule should go, or a simple, ENFORCE THE CURRENT RULE, statement.
Sorry guys, been busy. This DOES need work other than enforcement.
1) The frame must come to the front of the front tire. Why can it not cope into a bumper whoes front face is at the front of the front tire? I think this should be allowed. This will let "bumpers" compete with "ladders".
2) I think if the above is allowed, we need a max diameter on the bumper so that someone does not get a competitive advantage by running a 6" diameter bumper. "....if the frame copes or miters into a bumper, then the front face of the bumper must be in front of or at the front face of the tire. Max bumper diameter is 1.75".
3) A good point has been brought up about square tube frames vs. round. If you use square, your bumper must be a minimum or 20" vs. 19" with a round tube frame. Is this a big deal? Maybe....
4) I really think we should just MANDATE a bumper so that it can fit on any car. A lot of cars need improvement. I see no reason why they should not be bolt on. I think having a tube stick out with no bumper is dangerous. If this is the "drivers" class, lets take another small step towards a spec chassis.
Again, MANDATE a bumper that is 19" long, front face at the front of the front tire (at least), bottom no higher than the top of the tire (at ride height, winch loose, can be spot checked during comp), max diameter of 1.75", ends can be mitered or rounded (max radius .875")
The only person this would effect who currently fits inside the rules (that I know of) is Dave Cole.
1) The frame must come to the front of the front tire. Why can it not cope into a bumper whoes front face is at the front of the front tire? I think this should be allowed. This will let "bumpers" compete with "ladders".
2) I think if the above is allowed, we need a max diameter on the bumper so that someone does not get a competitive advantage by running a 6" diameter bumper. "....if the frame copes or miters into a bumper, then the front face of the bumper must be in front of or at the front face of the tire. Max bumper diameter is 1.75".
3) A good point has been brought up about square tube frames vs. round. If you use square, your bumper must be a minimum or 20" vs. 19" with a round tube frame. Is this a big deal? Maybe....
4) I really think we should just MANDATE a bumper so that it can fit on any car. A lot of cars need improvement. I see no reason why they should not be bolt on. I think having a tube stick out with no bumper is dangerous. If this is the "drivers" class, lets take another small step towards a spec chassis.
Again, MANDATE a bumper that is 19" long, front face at the front of the front tire (at least), bottom no higher than the top of the tire (at ride height, winch loose, can be spot checked during comp), max diameter of 1.75", ends can be mitered or rounded (max radius .875")
The only person this would effect who currently fits inside the rules (that I know of) is Dave Cole.
See above in red for my interpretations.Sorry guys, been busy. This DOES need work other than enforcement.
1) The frame must come to the front of the front tire. Why can it not cope into a bumper whoes front face is at the front of the front tire? I think this should be allowed. This will let "bumpers" compete with "ladders".
This is already acceptable. There are other ways of accomplishing the same effect versus coping, so a coped bumper is already included into the length of the frame measurement. We just need a way to write that.
2) I think if the above is allowed, we need a max diameter on the bumper so that someone does not get a competitive advantage by running a 6" diameter bumper. "....if the frame copes or miters into a bumper, then the front face of the bumper must be in front of or at the front face of the tire. Max bumper diameter is 1.75".
This is a tough one, simply due to the fact that a bumper does not have to be tube to be legal. Some people finish off their vehicles with rectangular tube or plate and that should be legal. I understand what you are getting at with the larger tube but think of it this way, they are gaining what?...1/8" in ramped clearance that could be acccomplished similarly with a small stinger or plate ramp. I don't know that this rule is worth worrying over because from where the furthest outward part of the tube meets the front of the tire, we measure from there...it's a miniscule amount and I don't see it being enough odf a competitive advantage versus the looks someone's vehicle will endure because of using a big tube bumper that is right out of the 80's.
3) A good point has been brought up about square tube frames vs. round. If you use square, your bumper must be a minimum or 20" vs. 19" with a round tube frame. Is this a big deal? Maybe....
The measurement for the fraimrail was created when all frames had to be rectangular so this was not an issue, it is now so the rule should be changed, but done so that the rules still keep people from getting too creative.
4) I really think we should just MANDATE a bumper so that it can fit on any car. I see no reason why they should not be bolt on. I think having a tube stick out with no bumper is dangerous. If this is the "drivers" class, lets take another small step towards a spec chassis.
No bolt on's should be "required". The frame "sticks" are an oddity that came about with tube frames. We can address those with a bumper.
Again, MANDATE a bumper that is 19" long, front face at the front of the front tire (at least), bottom no higher than the top of the tire (at ride height, winch loose, can be spot checked during comp), max diameter of 1.75", ends can be mitered or rounded (max radius .875")
A mandate for a bumper that is a minimum of 19" long, made of a certain thickness of material depending on size/shape could be mandated but the idea is to give the teams the freedom to design what looks most appealing to them, and fits within their frame/chassis design. We need to keep it open to teams using creativity, but not allow teams to use plate or angled rectangles to create more of an advantage. Try this on...the front bumper must be 1.5" diameter tube, extending forward so the front face is even with the front of the front tire, or further, with the lowest surface of the tube no higher than the top of the tire, at ride height. If other shapes, or tube diameter's are used to create the front bumper, the bumper must use at least the same footprint of a 1.5" diameter tube. ??? Then, include drawings showing a side view cut-a-way, that makes it clear.
Next, the ends should not be allowed to be mitered inside of the 19". That opens up a grey area that will cause people to be in a similar situation we are in right now. Outside of the 19", they can do anything they want with the bumper and we do not need to mention that within the rules, but can if the panel feels we need to.
The only person this would effect who currently fits inside the rules (that I know of) is Dave Cole.
Its always confusing how rules have been written for motor sports. The bumper rule is no different. I just looked at them again with a ? in my head. Maybe Im wrong but I dont see a width of the bumper. I understand the intent of the rule but why make it difficult to understand. Framerails (tube, square-whatever) shouldnt really matter. Who cares what the frame does in front of the front axle as long as the bumper isnt consumable, sticks out in front of tire, is not higher than top of tire and is a given width without bends. Lets say 12 inches, whatever. Heres an easy way to tech it. Materials needed piece of plywood at 90 degrees and some mustard! Put mustard (yummy) on bumper, pull up to wood--should leave a 12 inch mustard line no higher than 37 inches high. Done
These rules were tough to write...keep in mind, these framerail rules were written overnight a few years ago, when Ranch called me the day before his fourth promised rules deadline was about to pass and said, write me something that will keep people from making a moonbuggy for the Legends class, but still fits the current cars running. I had to write something that could keep someone from running two tubes, parallel to one another, 3" aprat, and calling that their two framerails, and then running something a-symetrical down the opposite side, making it into a literal specialty vehicle.Its always confusing how rules have been written for motor sports. The bumper rule is no different.
Then we had the other issue of making it work so it would not outdate the current vehicles running.
That's where these crazy and difficult rules came from...literaly pulled something out of my ass to save Ranch, and they are still being used because nobody has come up with anything better. The problem is they were created for rectangular tube frames and the vehicles of that era.
It's a somewhat new era and some changes are obviously due. That's why I was stoked to hear we had you on this panel jason...you fabricate just on the edge of the box, which is the kind of thinking we need to create rules that actually work, but maintain the goals and practicality of being able to fabricate. The only SIMPLE way is to design a spec chassis and force everyone to do the same damn thing, but what fun is that?
On the bumper discussion, I agree that it is ALMOST as simple as you say it is, and cheap because of the availablity of those free mustard packs at McDonalds. Still, we have stingers to deal with and those kinds of things, but the idea is right.
On the other hand, we need to write it into the rules in a way that all builders can understand it. Got any suggestions?
Dustin and I talked on the phone about this. This is what we came up with:
Mandate a bumper. A bumper is not clearly required at this point.
Thoughts?
Mandate a bumper. A bumper is not clearly required at this point.
As long as you fit this tube in the specified area, you can do whatever else you want! I don't think this rules changes the intent, other than requiring a bumper. I think that most people feel this is the unwritten rule anyway. As far as I know, simply requiring a bumper effects Ken Blume and Dave Cole. Ken seems to be up for anything, Dave might fuss a bit. If we have to, I'll cut Dave's chassis for him and move his bumper up.A 1.5" round front bumper is required whose front face is no farther aft than the front most point of the front tire.
The bottom most point of the bumper must be no higher than the top of the front tire at static ride height. Any means to compress the suspension must be released and this measurement can be rechecked during competition
The bumper is required to horizonatally extend 8.5" from the vehicle centerline (totalling 19")
If the bumper fits in between the frame rails (rails extend past the front of the front tire) then the bumper is required to horizonatally extend 8" from the vehicle centerline (totalling 16")
The bumper must not be designed to be intentionally damaged in competition to provide any competitve advantage.
If the bumper is made of material it must occupy the same footprint as 1.5" round tube and not provide a competitive advantage. (We need a diagram here, but the idea is than any material can be used, but not cut any more of the "corner" off than a 1.5" tube.
Thoughts?
That sounds like a good rule. and don't let Dave Cole B.S. you, he has plenty of resources to get modifications done. I know cause I'm one of them:shaking:
Brad, nice way to put it into print. We need to add a few defining words in there as they got left out.
ex. If the bumper is made of metal in a different shape/form than 1.5" diameter tube, it must...
ex. The bumper must not be designed to be intentionally damaged in competition to provide any competitive advantage. If the bumper is damaged in competition to to a point where it provides competitive advantage, W.E.ROCK may require you to repair it before proceeding to the next obstacle.
ex. The bottom most point of the bumper must, along the entire length stated in rule x.xxx, be no higher than....
ex. If the bumper is made of metal in a different shape/form than 1.5" diameter tube, it must...
ex. The bumper must not be designed to be intentionally damaged in competition to provide any competitive advantage. If the bumper is damaged in competition to to a point where it provides competitive advantage, W.E.ROCK may require you to repair it before proceeding to the next obstacle.
ex. The bottom most point of the bumper must, along the entire length stated in rule x.xxx, be no higher than....
I think we should add that all repairs must be fully welded and any time taken to make repairs must still follow Breakdown time rulesex. The bumper must not be designed to be intentionally damaged in competition to provide any competitive advantage. If the bumper is damaged in competition to to a point where it provides competitive advantage, W.E.ROCK may require you to repair it before proceeding to the next obstacle.
Where are we at with this? Do you want me to wordsmith it? Should we have a vote? Is everyone in agreement?
In my opinion, nothing is really changing other than requiring a bumper. The only changes we are making are fopr clarity in the rule.
In my opinion, nothing is really changing other than requiring a bumper. The only changes we are making are fopr clarity in the rule.
I think clarity in the rule is the only thing needed...the same rule, only written smoother. Anyobdy have an issue with Brad taking a stab at writing up something that reflects what we're discussing???
Also, I think it is safe to say that you can post in the hidden forum that the rule will be re-written to simplify what was already there...they can count on needing a bumper that is X" wide and in front of the tire, and no higher than the tire at any point in the required width. Ouside of the width, we don't care what the bumper does.
COMMENTS??? if not, Brad, run with it and post back with what you come up with.
Also, I think it is safe to say that you can post in the hidden forum that the rule will be re-written to simplify what was already there...they can count on needing a bumper that is X" wide and in front of the tire, and no higher than the tire at any point in the required width. Ouside of the width, we don't care what the bumper does.
COMMENTS??? if not, Brad, run with it and post back with what you come up with.
I agree with Brad taking a stab at a re-write. I was talking with Dave Cole this weekend and he explained his interpretation of the rule.
Brad, in your re-write, make sure you cover vehicles with adjustable ride heights because, as I understand it, Dave Cole's rig is in compliance in the height of the frame/bumper rule with his suspension all the way down and in compliance with the length rule with his suspension all the way up.
Brad, in your re-write, make sure you cover vehicles with adjustable ride heights because, as I understand it, Dave Cole's rig is in compliance in the height of the frame/bumper rule with his suspension all the way down and in compliance with the length rule with his suspension all the way up.
Yea, I have been thinking about the adjustable ride height. I was hoping someone else would solve that....
I will come up with something more formal but I think it will have to wait until Friday.
I will come up with something more formal but I think it will have to wait until Friday.
Try to include the ability that it can be several peices that make up the bumper. This is in case someone has their frame rails too narrow and need to add something to the outside as well as the bumper without completely having to cutoff their front end...
Like the issue of Nicole Johnson
Like the issue of Nicole Johnson
I am really sorry that I have not had time for this yet. FWIW, I stated an intent in the competitor forum so there are no surprises.
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Pirate 4x4
A forum community dedicated to custom off-road vehicle owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about trail reports, builds, performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, fabrication, drivetrain, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Wontun Splodies
72 Replies
total newb
57 Replies
Beat95YJ
53 Replies
Recommended Communities
