A complete unit ,cockpit pod and canopy, “Tested & Certified” with a sticker, Dates and Test pressures displayed, should be dropped into a standard sized opening in these boats, The speeds have reached a point where this is called for Also removed every year and recertified, this is kind of like the standard protocol in the aircraft business, where a plane has to make it to the destination without landing in our backyard.

Tom, good to see you in this thread! I've seen some of your earlier FEA work.

Can you tell us more of the panel test that is used by the OPC category of APBA?



How do you apply forces in your model?

I'm setting up a test using LS DYNA. It will look something like this but with a boat instead...

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Qu70wV17w[/YOUTUBE]

The laminated ones are 9/16 the solid is 3/4 .

i have a question of the above pic of the animated canopy. how do you relate that with the rest of the boat ? some of these failures are directly related to the deck and bulkheads making up the rest of the canopy, not the top half(above the deck).

next the canopys need to be water tight or sealed as best as possible. what use is it if the possibility of drowning is still there. also a standardized hatch/release system, air system and proper training of racers and safety personal. its got to be confusing to rescue personal with all the different canopy designs.

The Cockpit and Canopy are a pressure tested, rated unit, installed in the boat that way,everyone of them is the same, the speeds are so great the hull shell and deck can not be a part of the equation.

Again, they are all the same so, no confusion for the rescue teams.

Gary Stray at Miss GEICO Racing Team is responsible for the capsule and safety upgrades on these boats. We also worked very closely advising the Qatar team (Class 1) on their capsule upgrades this past year. Our shop has experienced composite experts advising and building the components. We have spent Many hours studying the impacts of boat accidents and have enhanced and reinforced areas most susceptible to failure. The Miss Geico will undergo a 3rd stage of safety cell enhancements this offseason with new helmet restraint devices ,refinement of our drag helmets (full air) to offshore req, air system ,replacement of belts, hatch accessibility, high str. aerospace hinges, Underwater cockpit lighting and saltwater dunker training this spring. Anyone who has been seated in the updgraded Miss GEICO will attest to the efforts that we have put into the boats safety.

With regards to engineering we worked with Lockheed Martin's Perry Submarine group to analyze impact pressures and structure forces. We believe that our cockpit will hold up past the terminal velocity of the body in the event of a sudden impact. As Rich has noted at very high speeds you have to be "realistic". Internal terminal velocities vary and are difficult to mitigate. The Miss Geico structure is 4+ inches of reinforced composite with diverters surrounding the cockpit. Our hatch is "cored" 2.5 inch thick /reinforced ribbing with a 4 pin steel locking mechanism and Jim Lee's newest aerospace windscreen. A unit that is certified and installed would be a perfect scenario for the big boats but we need to focus on getting the smaller boats up to task.

The Majority if not all of unlimited boats safety cells are quite adequate (Gasse, Cms, Cintron, Geico, Aqua, Rebel) for the task. The rest of the fleet excluding some of the late model DW and Fountains are not but could easily be enhanced. The economy is making even harder to focus limited funds towards their safety programs . That said .. We (Miss Geico Team) will review and advise on safety modifications and upgrades for any racing team at NO COST. Make an appointment and bring the boat to our shop. Be prepared for a direct no nonsense assessment. If desired we have the capabilities to help or suggest individuals that are reputable.

Unfortunately, if history repeats itself many competitors will chase speed over enhancing their safety program again next year. We're here for those that are ready to do something about it.

Pure class. The sport, hell the world, needs more people like this.

Very impressive, MissGeicoRacing! The "no nonsense assessment "is awesome!

I'm a little curios about some things in your post.
If I understand correctly, Miss G uses a "top hat" canopy with reinforced bulkheads beneath the deck?
That solution will be dependant on a number of joints and intersections to work properly. Some people say that top hat/bulkhead design is inferior to the "pod" type of design. So how come you are using a top hat type design?

Since you have used experts in composites when engineering, you would know that composites are extremely difficult to analyse when they come close to breaking. Have you done component testing to verify your models?

In the OPC category each cell builder is required to submit a small flat panel that Ziggy Boettle tests. The panel is supported near each end and force is applied through two bars spaced apart in the middle. The force and deflection are recorded at a number of steps. The force is increased until the panel fails. The test is commonly known as the 3000 newton test because the panel must not fail at less than the 3000 Newtons (675 pounds). Several builders have exceeded 5000 newtons. Offshore would likely want to exceed 10000 newtons depending on the class. The builders whose panels pass the test are listed as approved, otherwise the test results are confidential.

This test is good because it is cheap. As well, it is good because it gives the boat builder independent feedback on his proposed layup schedule. I've noticed in other categories that the strengths are difficult to enforce without a physical test.

Of course, after that the shape of the capsule can improve the strength of the system, and that is where the fea comes in.

For the model I just used a constant pressure over an area. I tried a number of different areas to apply the load over. In the image it was over the starboard quarter. The pressure was less than has been talked about here, it came from an example published by Mikael Lundblad of Sweden. I didn't worry about the variation of pressure that occurs, although that could be done.

I should mention too, that I assumed the canopy was rigidly held in place by a strong deck panel and bulkheads, not always realistic.

The layup schedule was one proposed by Patrick Heslop as one that might be good for Offshore 3C (with an 1.1/4" core).

The model wasn't intended to propose a particular construction, but to simulate an average canopy that met current regulations. This way we could see where the weak points are.

Tom Stanley

ASTM (D6416) will work as well, I used to use something very basic in material selection, Impact tests ,may have a video still on You tube, 2" dynamic core and build ups minimum on smaller boats