Originally Posted by starkejt
I have not seen anything to support that
I have not seen anything to support that
2006
2007
To be fair, wouldn't anyone who spent that much time and effort (not to mention $$$) feel that their work is superior? That's just human nature.
Josh,
Since i spent the better part of my holiday trying to get an understanding of this, care to share what you like?
Put it out in the sunshine lad.
What if it makes something I'm already going to do legal, and I specifically don't want YOU to know about because there's a good chance you'd never notice even if the change isn't made?
Agreed. Just seeing the other view also...one time I spent a ton of time making this new, trick front shock mount. When I tried it, it totally sucked.
Still need results, which I think will come for Radon. Just need some time. I think that is what others feel also. Better to nip it in the bud now, rather than later when it is more entrenched. If the Genie gets too far out of the bottle it is harder to get it back in.
But again, as I have said IF it is currently legal and would be MADE illegal by the current rules, then that is total bull poop.
Sigh,
And therein lies the rub. Studying this stuff all weekend, i occasionally wondered, "What if someone has figured out a new trick FF that requires the bottom of the chassis not being flat, multiple front bulkheads, tea tables extended way forward, with barge board devices along the rear?"
Are we tossing out one can of words for a newer one?
Calm down. I just would like to not have to throw away all of the uprights I have because the FF rule is worded differently than FC or FB.
I was hoping during the off season to build a new Reynard bellhousing, and all uprights out of carbon fiber. Along with the bodywork and wings in CF, i might get down to minimum weight.
I thought we had an agreement to overlook the magnesium stuff.
As an outsider looking in, I tend to agree with Reid's perspectve on this.
If I were the Radon guys, I would be defending my product as well.
With respect to results that appears to be a bit of a smokescreen. Results could come with some time. Perhaps my memory is a bit off, but I remember when the Corvette guys went to GT1 in Lemans, they got their butts handed to them by the Oreca Viper guys for a while. When they finally got their car and process straightened out they dominated and basically sent everyone packing from the class. I am not saying the Radon guys have the cash and capabilities of a fully funded GM/Pratt & Miller, but just the point is it takes time.
Ken
Matt, Chris, Mike;
I thought I had a decent understanding of the rules for FF/FC. My bet is that the Radon is not compliant with the rules now and dating to when it first showed up. Obviously there is a difference of opinion.
If you look at the universe of FC cars, and you look at the rules, you see that all but one of the current FC designs are very similar in how they build the frames and how the frames function as a part of the total car. The Radon is the lone exception.
I and the other old line chassis manufacturers were not stupid because we chose not to push the rules against monocoque and composite construction when we designed and built our cars. We chose not to do so because we felt that we would be vulnerable to a change (clarification) in the rules. The rules clearly state that the cars shall have steel tube frame chassis and monocoque and composite construction is not allowed..
I can site the Zink FV case where close to 100 cars (with several SCCA National Championships) were ruled illegal and forced to change their frames because they had pushed the stressed skin rules too far. It was not the Zink design that caused the rules change but the Bobsy that took the next step in stressed skin construction that caused the complete rules write. In fact, much of the rules governing stressed skin construction date back to that protest. In my eyes the Radon is just such a car in today’s environment.
What the Radon has done is change the construction of FC chassis from who can best design a steel tube frame to who can best incorporate the advantages of a composite tub and still pass the design off as having sufficient vestigial components that allows it to meet the minimum for a “tube frame”.
If I could triple the rigidity of my frame by following the Radon lead, I feel that I can easily obsolete anything I have done previously. I have run torsion tests on several cars that are triple what I am now working with so I know what my target is. I also have extensive engineering experience in Formula Atlantic and Indy Lights, so I think I understand good and marginal tubs.
Over a year ago, I submitted drawings and design concepts to the CRB as an alternative approach to the Radon that I felt are more within the rules than the Radon. I have continued to work on that design after the 2012 GCR revisions. I am certain that I can hit my targets. What I hate about my design is that it will drive the cost of the frame and center body section of the car to well over $30,000 (that is not retail), triple what those parts now cost. Jack the cost of competitive equipment by that amount, render existing cars uncompetitive, and you kill the FC class as we know it.
Chris: my last production run was 8 cars starting in 2007. That run included FF, FC and FB cars. I think those 8 cars have a decent finishing record in both club and pro racing. We are continuing to improve our performance, as we prepare to start a new run of cars this fall.
Steve,
If you read my post #149, i chose not to enter all the Radon fray. I concentrated on expressing my concerns about these rule changes, even if the Radon didn't exist.
(Although i did compliment the Radon side attenuators that are unfortunately CF.)
Now, you come out with a long editorial about the Radon. That may make many suspect the whole deal is really about the Radon.
People mention possible cost inflation without this rule change, but i see some asspects of the new rules that will increase costs in other areas.
p.s. Phil says Tatuus rad ducts are not CF. for the record.
I don't beleive anybody sees you or other "old line chassis manufacturers" as stupid. If anything you, and them, were complacent because you could be. Of course you knew if anybody did step up and build "it" the rest would reign you in by changing the rules....even if 100 "Zinks" were victim because of one Bobsy.
The collective genius that was complacent because they could be should have changed the rules when the saw the possibilties, not wait until somebody stepped up.
Being complacent in business should carry the same risk as thinking outside the box.
Some of us saw the problems over 15 years ago, tried to get things fixed, and were thoroughly rebuffed by the CRB of the time. It took a complete change in CRB personnel before it was agreed that the rules needed a thorough updating, and even then they decided to do it only one section at a time with bodywork first and frame rules second.The collective genius that was complacent because they could be should have changed the rules when the saw the possibilties, not wait until somebody stepped up.
To know what has gone on in the past, you actually had to be there.
Or
That would only make sense if Steve was part of the FSRAC or part of the rewrite. Or maybe the current theory is that Steve has masterminded this whole thing?Now, you come out with a long editorial about the Radon. That may make many suspect the whole deal is really about the Radon.
reason why...
I was informed this past weekend by the local BoD member that they,the BoD, had charged the individual committees (i.e. FSRAC) to consolidate the rules for the upcoming class consolidations.
Reading between the lines, FF and FC will survive the consolidation, same basic chassis rules.
wasnt there already talk about combining FM and FE? Maybe FB and FA?
I thought I also remember seeing that in Aug fastrack the BoD voted on being able to implement the 2.5 rule. Just saying.....
John
Imagine if the rest of the world operated that way.To know what has gone on in the past, you actually had to be there.
Wren,
Did you miss all the smileys and winks on that quote of mine? It was meant as a humourous aside to the vein this thread takes occasionally.
We all know the conspiracy is based south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Naa - will never happen. What would most people have to do for fun if they didn't grouse about stuff they know nothing about?
Now, if we could somehow pass a law of that sort covering the political and financial pundits..........
Probably a whole lot of nothing. Which is what history tells you will happen as far a letter writing campaign against getting this pushed through. Even if there are a ton of letters against the proposal, it will go through in interest of what is best for the class. Especially if class consolidation is right around the corner. There will be bit of unhappiness for a spell, but then folks will be right back to racing forgeting about how another Jeremy Hill like screwing took place. Hmmmm smells exactly like protectionism, again, to me.What would most people have to do for fun if they didn't grouse about stuff they know nothing about?
Daryl;
I have been involved in racing as a manufacturer since 1974. I have shipped over 200 cars out my door since then. With very few exceptions, every model/class of car I have produced has won a national or pro championship.
Now how many Raydons do you think I have seen? You want to bet that if the Raydon is the new standard, I won't keep my success going? I actually play this game.
How is that for snarky?
Protection from what? Have you looked at a results sheet lately?
I've been around competitive sports of all types, and racing for over half my life to know that cream rises to the top. You'll be just fine. So why not write a letter or two against the proposal?
Wren, you are much smarter than that. Results coming off the trailer aren't there. So what? They rarely are.
It's protection of the status quo. Protection from the potential of the Radon. It's protection from what might need to be built in response to the Radon. Protection from the significant investment in time and money in proven packages. Protection of the knowledge acquired by racing the same chassis for quite some time. Protection of the ability to utilize the same basic chassis in FF/FC/FB and be competitive in all three (for both the manufacturer and the racer).
Had a couple minutes before calling it quits for the day.
1. D.2. Where it outlaws “metal matrix”, I think it would be clearer if it said “metal matrix composites”. My brief research says metal matrix is not clear enough, it’s sort of slang.
Somewhat redundant, since "high performance composites" is also listed, but that said, it wouldn't hurt to insert it.
2. D.3.a. There is no specification of where the front bulkhead has to be in relation to the front axles/wheels. So one might have the front bulkhead moved back a foot or so from where we are used to seeing it. (think Kyle Connery [FONT=Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings]J[/FONT][/FONT] ) The front bulkhead could be back at the rear of the front wheel. Maybe possible because…
This has been added: This does not preclude a secondary forward bulkhead ahead of this “front” bulkhead).
So one might hang parts the front suspension off this secondary front bulkhead ahead of the front bulkhead. See where I’m going with this? Maybe F1 style noses on FF…
Look again- the same wording that has defined the front bulkhead and where it is in relation to the drivers feet and where the drivers feet have to be in relation to the wheel rim remains unchanged from what has been there for 26 years.
[FONT=Times New Roman]3. D.3.a. Stressed floor now doesn’t have to be flat. First time since 1986….[/FONT]
Concession to Radon and what everybody seems to want to see in modern cars.
4. D.3.b. Says: No panels or other components other than those which are explicitly described within the “Preparation Rules” set forth herein may be attached to the chassis/frame.
See #5 below. I read all of “Preparation Rules”. No mention of radios, ECUs, St. Christopher statues, etc. So, those things can’t be attached to the chassis?
I think that has been caught already and is being changed - I mentioned it to someone right after the second publication.
[FONT=Times New Roman]5. D.3.f A change in the definition of bracket, requiring that it be metal (rather than non-ferrous, which means any material other than steel or iron, including plastics and composites). Took out “may be non-ferrous” replaced with “shall be metal”.[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]f. Brackets [/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic]are [/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic]permitted [/FONT][FONT=Univers]for [/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic]the exclusive purpose [/FONT][FONT=Univers]of mounting components, such as the engine,[/FONT][FONT=Univers]transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels,[/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic].[/FONT]
This bracket thing could be a can of worms. I see cars with tons of nylon zip-ties, and Velcro holding all kinds of things to the chassis (Radios, ECUs, wiring, ) that are not engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, etc., etc. What is a bracket and what is not? If a plastic radio canister is zip-tied to a chassis rail, can it be protested?
You might want to turn in your Tech Steward badge if you don't know the difference between a bracket and a fastener - zip ties, velcro, etc, are all fasteners - you know - sorta like bolts, screws and rivets....
[FONT=Times New Roman]6. Deleted D.4.f: They deleted this language: f. Carbon fiber is not permitted in any external bodywork. Cockpit interior panels, internal ductwork, air intakes and mirrors are not subject to this restriction. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]This change now outlaws the use of carbon for air ducts. A problem for some Tatuus, their radiator ducts are carbon. And, the Radon had really neat CF side attenuators built into its radiator ducts. Are Jeremy’s trick air ducts to his Fit air filter carbon?[/FONT]
Fed that back already, but no idea if it will be inserted. However, carbon fiber in FC bodywork - including inlets - has never been legal, only FF allows CF in inlets, and mirrors. Weird, yes, since you would think that it would be the other way around.
7. D.6.g. What about barge boards less than 30” ahead of the rear rollhoop? Seems to open up possibility of all sorts of aero stuff aimed at the rear wheel. If you are banning barge boards, ban them. Don’t allow them to be sticking up above the diffusers in the rear of FC cars.
I think that no one wants to allow that sort of expensive aero going on from here forward. Lots of cars have vertical fences on the tops of their diffusers already, so I can see why that end of the car isn't addressed.
8. D.6.k. Kevlar is now allowed in wings? Why? (Kevlar is more expensive than Carbon, so it is not a cost saving deal) What does this buy us?
Kevlar has been allowed in wings since maybe '94. Nothing new here.
It's been on track over a year. It's the RN.10. It is not coming off the trailer.
Besides, they have Dr. Radon on their side. That's an unfair advantage. He has modern design tools.
This is the man who brought us gems like this, from before his car even hit the track:
Wow - that is a pretty bold comment.
Put Niki on a Huffy and he would still smoke most people. Shoot....look what he is doing with a RFR! Put a Zetec in his Van Diemen and see what's up. Not bad for some "club racin' " guy
Can someone explain exactly what major problems these rules "clarifications" are supposed to be solving?
Has there been a multitude of secret protests in FC over the last ten years that haven't been published in FastTrack or that we've all missed?
How about any protests in the last ten years that weren't resolved with the current rules set?
Let's say these new "rules" are enacted and they effectively outlaw the Radon, then what?
What was accomplished, more cars on track?
You think the guys that bought them won't simply run them in another venue?
Does anyone really think the playing field will have been so leveled there will be people standing in line for new cars?
I doubt it...
Iv'e been racing FC in the NE region for many years now both nationally and regionally and I don't remember the last protest, maybe it's senility?
What I can speak to is the dwindling to nonexistent FC entries and this rules deal certainly isn't going to increase entries or sell new cars.
If you think differently why not ask the guys who are actually racing, I have.
It doesn't take a neurosurgeon to figure out you guys pushing this are doing nothing
more than simply putting the last few nails in the FC club coffin.
Richard, you wrote:
Look again- the same wording that has defined the front bulkhead and where it is in relation to the drivers feet and where the drivers feet have to be in relation to the wheel rim remains unchanged from what has been there for 26 years.
The rules say the drivers feet have to be behind the fronts of the front wheels. And they say the front bulkhead will be in front of the feet. But... They dont preclude the front bulkhead from being moved back to a position say the rear of the front tires (as long as the drivers feet stay behind that bulkhead. Obviously an extreme example. But the way the rules read as long as the drivers feet are behind it, and behind the fronts of the front wheels, that bulkhead can be as far back as you can design it. Now with the allowance for a secondary front bulkhead ahead of the front bulkhead, i see some interesting engineering possibilities, especially when you eliminate the flat stressed floor rule.
Also, eliminating the flat stressed floor rule is not a concession to the Radon. Its floor is flat from the rear rollhoop to the front bulkhead. The RFR declared the very bottom of the car as their stressed flat floor to make the rule. There has been a RFR team looking at the possibility of using the new rule to to be able to chop off the tea tray back to the rear of the front tires. But, if the reference plane is moved forward to the bulkhead, that idea dies.
Throwing out the stressed flat floor rule does allow for new designs in the future in both FF and FC.
After your post, I did look at a few hundred pictures of FCs this evening in our files. I could not find vertical fences you mention above the diffusers that could be construed as any sort of barge boards.(I did find pictures of DaveW's car and Niki's car with extra helper wings mounted above the rear of the diffuser. ) The only cars i found obvious aero devices mounted on top of diffusers was in the FB class (Dixon's and Cooper's). Do we want those kinds of aero things in FC?
Richard,
Maybe you should point out to us where in the current GCR (August 2012) it says Kevlar is allowed in wings.
I see where in the FF rules D.8.f Kevlar may be used to reinforce bodywork. No mention of airfoils. Maybe since airfoils aren't allowed in FF.
And, i see where carbon reinforcement is not allowed in airfoils in B.2 of the FC rules. No mention of Kevlar there (where it would make sense to mention it.)
Are you using the definition of Body in the Technical Glossary as the way to define airfoils as part of the body because they are above the floor and licked by the airstream?
Please point out the trail of logic as it is in the current rule set for those of us that would like to see the logical trail.
This bracket thing could be a can of worms. I see cars with tons of nylon zip-ties, and Velcro holding all kinds of things to the chassis (Radios, ECUs, wiring, ) that are not engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, etc., etc. What is a bracket and what is not? If a plastic radio canister is zip-tied to a chassis rail, can it be protested?
Richard replied: You might want to turn in your Tech Steward badge if you don't know the difference between a bracket and a fastener - zip ties, velcro, etc, are all fasteners - you know - sorta like bolts, screws and rivets....
I love it when you patronize me.
I wasn't talking about the zip-ties and velcro being protested... I was talking about the plastic radio canister as being the thing that could be protested. Could somebody say it was a bracket to hold the radio? And it not being metal, being protestable?
Whatever...
Okay, I'll concede that point. I was speaking relative to the time and effort put into those it is racing against. I know I wouldn't put a ton of effort into developing the package if there was a witch hunt to ban elements of its design before it was even proven to be competitive. Imagine the intensity ramping up if it was winning
As far as the marketing hype and delivery of such....nice to be confident....however I prefer the "show me rather than tell me" approach as well. I get where you are coming from, but that doesn't change the hows and the whys of what's going on with these rule changes.
You would already be allowed to put the bulkhead back there. You are also already allowed to put other things in front of the bulkhead, whether it is the Radon machined piece or the Citation MC/nose/suspension/steering rack/sway bar bracket. The floor rule is the only thing that changes.
Reading between the lines, my point being...
The farther the designer moves the front bulkhead back, the farther back the front of their bottom plane of reference becomes. Thus, the intention to move the Bottom plane of reference from the rear of the front tires (current rule) to the front bulkhead (proposed rule) to achieve a more forward bottom plane of reference could be somewhat circumvented in that it might not achieve what the writers are trying to achieve.
Honest, serious question, since I'm shiny, brand, nugget-new to the class.
Where are barge boards and the like banned? I didn't see anything in the GCR -- which, of course, doesn't mean it's not there. I'd like to know the rules, ya know? Where is this stuff written down?
The only thing I remember seeing is that aero devices can't be higher than the top of the rim.
Those possibilities have been there since '86 when that wording was first inserted. It was based on where Bruns place the pedals in the DB1. Designs up until then had started pushing the driver further and further forward in order to gain front weight, but it was starting to show to be dangerous (even in F1), so when the rules were written some sort of new limitation had to be set.
The secondary bulkhead allowance was inserted to get designers to start thinking along the lines of the British FF rules in mounting their front attenuator.
The rules have never stated that the floor had to be flat - it was stated in terms of curvature. In the pre-Glossary times, it was accepted that "curvature" meant essentially the same as "vertical deviation" (and in the '70's, it was referring to side-to-side curvature like you would see on F1 cars of the time). I had tried to get the wording changed to state a "vertical deviation" allowance (since that was how it was being interpreted at the time, and I could foresee what "curvature" could be interpreted to mean), but to no avail. When the Glossary became an official part of rules interpretation, the meaning of "curvature" changed once again - this time officially. I again pointed out the design possibilities to the CRB, but was unsuccessful once again.
The Radon design of its raised footbox and the sloped floor could only be accomplished by making use of the floorpan curvature rule after the phrase "and undertray" was mistakenly dropped out of the floorpan rules in the 2010 rewrite and the CoA went along with it (they really had no choice with that phrase missing and the definition given in the glossary). If its floor was flat as you seem to be thinking, it would have to go all the way to the front bulkhead and the car would be configured just like all the designs from all the other manufacturers who adhered to the pre-Glossary interpretation of the floorpan rule. The insertion of the requirements for the reference area to extend to the front bulkhead would bring back the "flat bottom" aspect of the undersides design (under which RFR would not have to make any changes, but Radon would have to extend their splitter) that all cars have been designed to up until now. Its a compromise - allow the raised footboxes that everyone wants to see nowadays, but keep the underside flat.
And yes, it does open up a lot of design possibilities, which is what people want to see, correct?
It seems to be what the rest of the world calls "bargeboards" that that rule is aimed at - not stuff further rearward that have come and gone over the years. Different guys have run different things over the years - I've seen all sorts of fences, channels, etc over time. If no one is running any at this time, that is their choice.After your post, I did look at a few hundred pictures of FCs this evening in our files. I could not find vertical fences you mention above the diffusers that could be construed as any sort of barge boards.
A bit of both -
1 - since the Glossary is now an official part of rules interpretation, wings do indeed officially come under the jurisdiction of the Glossary definition of "Bodywork";
2 - there is an allowance for it in the FF section (though it could be indeed be debated as to whether or not it would apply to the "airfoil" part of the FC rules section) ;
3 - and there is no prohibition against it in the FC "Bodywork and Airfoils" section - only CF is banned, but allowing kevlar, fiberglass, metals, etc, could indeed also be debated because of the "restrictions and allowances as stated herein" at the start of the FC rules. Because of no statement on what is allowed, and only a statement that CF is disallowed, the interpretation has to be that kevlar is allowed. If there had been specific material allowance stated, then by implication, kevlar would not be allowed if not on that list.
That may or may not be what Phil C. meant when he proposed and passed that allowance ('94 or '95, I think) but that is the effect. If the Glossary definition were to be changed without this proposal being passed, kevlar might then be not allowed in wings, depending on the wording that is used.
Good point. However, up to now the interpretation (by most, but not all, people) of "non-ferrous" meant "metal of less than 50% iron", so the use of a plastic bracket could have been questioned even in the past. Don't have any answer for you other than that.
Somebody has to get you to actually think!I love it when you patronize me.
Last edited by R. Pare; 09.05.12 at 12:42 PM. Reason: fix the kevlar explanation
Richard you wrote about Kevlar in wings:
3 - and there is no prohibition against it in the FC "Bodywork and Airfoils" section - only CF is banned, but allowing kevlar, fiberglass, metals, etc, could indeed also be debated because of the "restrictions and allowances as stated herein" at the start of the FC rules. Because of no statement on what is allowed, and only a statement that CF is disallowed, the interpretation has to be that kevlar is allowed. If there had been specific material allowance stated, then by implication, kevlar would not be allowed if not on that list.
If you use the "When in doubt, Don't" language at the front of both the FF and FC sections. I would say, reading the current rules Kevlar is not legal. But then, I consider airfoils and wings to be different than bodywork. It reconfirms how utterly confusing the rules are for anybody coming in and picking up the rulebook.
Based on your sentence: "Because of no statement on what is allowed, and only a statement that CF is disallowed, the interpretation has to be that kevlar is allowed."
Then any material in the universe is allowed for wings as long as it is not carbon fiber!
I've always had a laugh with that rule - Prove that I had any doubt!
Yup, and that would cover use of all sorts of things that are currently in general use - even the use of a shifter handle (they aren't stated as "allowed expressly herein").
We are never going to have perfect rules - just something that gets us close to start. At some point, common sense has to prevail when the wording is not all-inclusive and infallible.
Of course, the rules don't really matter when they aren't being enforced. Do they?
Last edited by Chris Livengood; 09.05.12 at 10:36 PM.
Chris Livengood, enjoying underpriced ferrous whizzy bits that I hacked out in my tool shed since 1999.
Mike the "when in doubt" statement in many rules preamble in the GCR is pretty much meaningless IMO. You may remember in 2005 our f500 was protested on our turning the engine around. No need to go into massive detail of the protest, but one of the tech people on the protest committee was adamant about the fact that we did not ask for a ruling and that we should not have done it because of the "when in doubt" statement.
My response was that I had "no doubt" at all that we we were legal as we had researched the issue very throughly. Of course we were legal at the Runoffs, but paid the price for being too bold the next March when the CRB "clarified" the rules to allow only engine placement as was traditional in F500.
I suspect that the Radon guys found conceptually similar "rules" wording issues and decided to try something new. I personally hope that the Radon is not defined as illegal with this new set of rules for FF/FC but I know from experience that this can happen and that you have to deal with it.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
Jay,
Your story, and Jeremy Hill's, are the two ulimately classic stories that will go down in the annals of SCCA history of classic screw jobs.
In non-spec classes where engineering is a significant key to performance, those rulings fly in the face of the spirit of the classes.
IMHO. YMMV.
Deleted
Last edited by R.DeVoe; 09.06.12 at 11:39 AM.
"The winner ain't the one with the fastest car, it's the one who refuses to lose." - Dale Earnhardt Sr.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
