FC/ FF rules passed 12 / 0

[rperry]

You don't break the rules, then challenge the sanctioning body to change them to fit your car just because you claim them to be safer. That excuse has become laughable at this point. Radon played in between the words (and intent) of the rules and got caught. Deal with it, adapt and move on.

No one is asking the SCCA to adapt rules specifically for the Radon. People are asking them not to deliberately write rules which prevent it being modified for compliance.

Arbitrary new provisions in the rules make "adapt and move on" impossible. What was before a $3-5k replacement of carbon parts with aluminum ones (adapt and move on) has been made into a $15-18k redesign of the whole car (get out and stay out.)

Now if that rule was for some reason necessary for the health of the class, then let's discuss why. But so far the only justification I see is preventing Radon from ever adapting the car to compete in SCCA.

[asw]

Robert:

The rules are what they are. It is time to go racing.

We each have our opinions as to what actually happened in the rules rewrite process. I don't think anyone, at this point, is going to change their opions.

As to the safety issue, all the claims for the Radon are just that claims. Now I expect that every one did their home work and the claims have a solid basis.

On the other hand, the RFR has been through the FIA crash test. The results indicated that the tube structure they have gives very good protection, especially when combined with FIA approved safety panels for tube frame cars. That is fact.

I just have my experience analyizing my cars after crashes. Given that experience, I feel my cars offer good protection. I also plan to improve on that with the next run of cars.

S Lathrop,

I happen to know a few people at the FIA and having worked with them in the past I am keen to know where exactly was this RFR FIA crash tested? Could you kindly give out more details?

Regards,
asw

[Tom Valet]

Robert, can you please explain to a layperson what it is that Radon could have done under the old rules ("the 2012 rules") to make the cars compliant that cannot be done now under the new rules ("the 2013 rules")?

Thanks

[rperry]

Robert, can you please explain to a layperson what it is that Radon could have done under the old rules ("the 2012 rules") to make the cars compliant that cannot be done now under the new rules ("the 2013 rules")?

Thanks

Re-manufacture their carbon parts using metal. Expensive, but at least possible.

[starkejt]

No one is asking the SCCA to adapt rules specifically for the Radon. People are asking them not to deliberately write rules which prevent it being modified for compliance.

Arbitrary new provisions in the rules make "adapt and move on" impossible. What was before a $3-5k replacement of carbon parts with aluminum ones (adapt and move on) has been made into a $15-18k redesign of the whole car (get out and stay out.)

Now if that rule was for some reason necessary for the health of the class, then let's discuss why. But so far the only justification I see is preventing Radon from ever adapting the car to compete in SCCA.

Which is it?

[Tom Valet]

Re-manufacture their carbon parts using metal. Expensive, but at least possible.

Why can't that be done now?

[Daryl DeArman]

The Radon was built around the rules and the rules were amended to prevent it from happening again.

IF the Radon was built "around" the rules, why would the rules need to be amended to prevent it from happening again?

You can argue semantics and definitions of words all you want, but it doesn't make the car fall within the limits of the rulebook.

IF we were to agree this is true then the rulebook wouldn't have needed to be amended at all.





Wren said, citing the 2012 GCR:

Stress-Bearing Panel Definition: Any sheet material that is attached
to the frame by welding, bonding, riveting, threaded fasteners, or
any combination thereof, the centers of which are located closer
than 6 inches.

^^^^^added emphasis mine

I don't see "Stress-Bearing Panel" in the Glossary of the 2012 GCR. I did find in the 2012 GCR FC section 9.1.1.B.1:

Stress bearing panels are defined as: sheet metal affixed to the
frame by welding, bonding, rivets, bolts, or screws which have centers
closer than 15.24cm (6 inches).

^^^^added emphasis mine

Per the 2012 GCR definitions if it isn't metal, it can't be considered a stress bearing panel.

[Jnovak]

Robert, I know that you think the rules are not well written in some respect and I will agree that some of the wording is not perfect. However this will be true for any written document. I still think that the Radon could add a diagonal in the side passenger bay and then use slightlly modified intrusion panels to allow for the use of the FIA attachment system. This would not only increase the stiffness of the chassis but would be just as safe.

Now I know that you think that the FIA attachment rules are not legal. However the point of fact is that the SCCA has stated that it is a legal method of attaching the anti-intrusion panels.

It simply does not matter if the wording conflicts with another statement, this is considered an allowable system and that is very clearly defined. The GCR states that this method of attachment is legal, so therefore it is.

I suggest that you take advantage of the rule as written. Just my opinion.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[R. Pare]

Robert:

You seem to be a bit behind on what rules the Radon has to abide by. The Radon last month was given dispensation to only have to abide by the 2012 rules (for the existing chassis), not the 2013 rules.

However, you will still have to come into compliance with the side panel rules, the floorpan curvature and coverage rules and the shock bracket rules.

It would actually be easier to comply with the 2013 rules.

FYI: I am NOT in the car building business, and haven't been for many years - I need to actually earn a living. The push on the rules re-write started many, many years ago by myself and others who knew that the wording was inadequate, as well as the difficulty of having to read through 2 sets of rules to find out what was legal for FC. It was the FSRAC and CRB, as well as a couple of BOD members that asked me to do the initial writing, and they (the CRB and FSRAC) took it from there and modified it as they saw fit.

Your allegations of conspiracies and financial interests on my part and others borders very closely to libel.

[alangbaker]

You are wren really like to skirt this issue, which has NOTHING to do with the material of a panel. Let me ask it again.

Why was the 6" rule eliminated??? What's the benefit to drivers?

Robert, you are wrong on the facts. Here is the 2013 GCR on the subject of driver protection panels:

The area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the front instrument/dash roll hoop bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulk- head shall be protected by at least one of the following methods to prevent the intrusion of objects into the cockpit. Panels may extend to the forward most bulkhead, but must otherwise comply with these regulations.

1. Panel(s), minimum of either .060 inch heat treated aluminum (6061-T6 or equivalent) or 18 gauge steel, attached to the outside of the main frame tubes.

2. Reinforced body, consisting of at least two layers of 5 ounce, bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame. (5 or more layers are highly recommended.) For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than 6 inch centers. The steel tubes used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material.

The rule was not eliminated. There is a different method of cockpit protection listed:

3. Flat composite panels of uniform thickness and construction attached to the outside of the main frame tubes. Shaping of these panels to conform with the outer perimeter of the main frame tubes is permitted. Carbon fiber is permitted; however, it must be used in conjunction with another “anti-ballistic” type material (e.g., Kevlar, Zylon, etc). Such material shall be at least 1.5mm (.060 inches) in thickness not counting the carbon fiber.

4. Composite anti-intrusion panels shall be attached with no more than eight fasteners per side. Fasteners shall be AN or superior grade of not more than 0.25 inch diameter.

[Wren]

Why can't that be done now?

No one actually knows if it can be done or not. Here is the situation as I understand it, and I admit that I don't understand all of it.

The carbon side panels on the Radon evidently serve multiple purposes and I don't know what all of them are. In the rules proposal that Nathan shared with the community they did not even show the complete panel and spent all of their time talking about safety with some vague references to what chassis functions they might accomplish. If they were to remanufacture the panels in aluminum, maybe they would violate the rule below?

Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and antiintrusion
panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or
installed in such a manner that they serve any structural purpose
other than that of anti-intrusion. In the absence of such panels the
chassis must be capable of performing to the same level or degree
as when they are installed.

But, we are getting our information filtered through someone who claims that mounting panels in a way that is specifically allowed by the GCR is illegal and that the whole thing is a conspiracy. Depending on the functions served by the panels, they might be able to mount aluminum panels on 6" centers as described in GCR 9.1.1.3.e.1. People assuming that they knew what the rule book said and never bothering to read it or ask the COA is what got them and their customers into this mess.

The shock mount panel would have to go and be replaced by either a bracket or a welded tube structure.

IF the Radon was built "around" the rules, why would the rules need to be amended to prevent it from happening again?

If the current rules package had been in place before the Radon was built, there is no chance that they would have made the same mistakes they did. That is not to excuse their mistakes as they had plenty of warning, but it really spells out some of the things they ignored/misunderstood. To borrow a phrase from fastrack, the rules were adequate as written, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have been better.

Bringing together the FF/FC rules to prevent any more weird differences from popping up was a really good thing. There are some other rules changes in there on things like raised noses that may or may not be good things depending on your opinion.

IF we were to agree this is true then the rulebook wouldn't have needed to be amended at all.

The rule book did not have to be amended to make the car illegal. Reference the march fastrack and this thread. Even rperry has given up trying to make a defense for the car being legal per the 2012 GCR.

Robert:

You seem to be a bit behind on what rules the Radon has to abide by. The Radon last month was given dispensation to only have to abide by the 2012 rules (for the existing chassis), not the 2013 rules.

However, you will still have to come into compliance with the side panel rules, the floorpan curvature and coverage rules and the shock bracket rules.

They have to be legal to the 2012 GCR in the as-delivered state. They would have to hack up their frame and replace their diffuser and shock mounts with compliant parts at a minimum and then it isn't as-delivered.

[Tom Valet]

Leaving aside exactly how they could be made compliant, my question is raised by the assertion by Robert that if not for the 2013 rules change they could more easily have reconfigured the cars under the old 2012 rules. I guess I just dont understand what option existed in the 2012 rules that has been taken away by the new rules, since the "old" method of mounting the side panels is still in place.

[Daryl DeArman]

If the current rules package had been in place before the Radon was built, there is no chance that they would have made the same mistakes they did.

They are only mistakes in hindsight at the time they were interpretations.

The rule book did not have to be amended to make the car illegal.

The only reason a specific rule is amended or clarified is to prevent or allow something today that they didn't prevent or allow yesterday. Even errors and omissions prevent or allow something today that they didn't yesterday.

[grumpyf14d]

Thought I'd post the 2013 FIA rules to add fuel to the fire.

2.2.1.1 Cars with space frame technology

d. Side protection
In order to give additional protection to the driver in the event of a side impact, an FIA-approved panel of uniform construction must be attached to the space frame. This panel must extend from the front roll structure up to the rearmost edge of the fuel cell. The panel must also cover the space frame from the bottom / floor chassis rail to the cockpit opening chassis rail.

d1. Vehicles built before 01.01.2014
The specification of this panel is: DYOLEN of a minimum thickness of 10 mm which must be solidly attached to the main structure of
tubular frame in the requested area in the following way: at its extreme corners, the upper, lower, forward and rearward edge halfway between the corners, and halfway along each diagonal tube. The attachment should consist of an 8mm U-bolt and an aluminium plate 3mm thick, 20mm wide and 12mm longer than the U-bolt span.

d2. Vehicles built as from 01.01.2014 (recommended also for cars built before this date)
The specification of this panel and its attachment is contained within technical list n° (TBD). In order to prevent the intrusion of suspension parts into the survival cell during a side impact, each member of every front suspension component with two inboard mountings must be joined by a link as close to the survival cell as practical. This link must be circular with a minimum diameter of 10 mm, and any slip joint must be bolted or pinned and located in the centre of the span.

Should provide a bit of discussion as complying with the FIA rules might prove to be difficult to do and still be in compliance with the GCR. In the meantime thought I'd provide some car porn...the Veneno!

[R. Pare]

If the club ever decides to go to the full FIA spec, adding it into the rules wouldn't be a problem at all. Making such panels for the myriad of frame styles out there is a whole 'nother story........

[Daryl DeArman]

Should provide a bit of discussion as complying with the FIA rules might prove to be difficult to do and still be in compliance with the GCR.

The FIA spec compliance alternative in the GCR would be an "either" not an "and".

[rperry]

Robert, you are wrong on the facts. Here is the 2013 GCR on the subject of driver protection panels:

The rule was not eliminated. There is a different method of cockpit protection listed:

As far as panels attached to the frame goes, the 6" rule was eliminated (what you quote is bodywork.) Any radon panels, which were designed with the 6" mounting definition of "structural" are now illegal under the new definition of structural mounting.

This was done to keep the Radon from being brought into compliance.

No one actually knows if it can be done or not. Here is the situation as I understand it, and I admit that I don't understand all of it.

The carbon side panels on the Radon evidently serve multiple purposes and I don't know what all of them are. In the rules proposal that Nathan shared with the community they did not even show the complete panel and spent all of their time talking about safety with some vague references to what chassis functions they might accomplish. If they were to remanufacture the panels in aluminum, maybe they would violate the rule below?

Wren, you know it cannot be done. Everyone who reads the rules knows it can not be done. Everyone who pushed for the rules purposely wanted it that way. The radon panels were designed around the 2012 definition of adding stiffness to the chassis. That means aluminum could be directly substituted without a redesign of the car.

But this provision has made that illegal, specifically to keep the Radon out of SCCA and NO other reason.

If the current rules package had been in place before the Radon was built, there is no chance that they would have made the same mistakes they did.

That is completely false. When the Radon was being built, there was no clear prohibition of carbon, nor was there any rule that outlaws panels transferring stiffness to the chassis, except for the 25 year old 6" rule on stress bearing panels, which the Radon was designed around.

Bringing together the FF/FC rules to prevent any more weird differences from popping up was a really good thing. There are some other rules changes in there on things like raised noses that may or may not be good things depending on your opinion.

It was a good thing for you and the anti-Radon crowd because it makes the Radon prohibitively expensive to bring into compliance ($15k+). Without this re-write, the Radon could be made compliant for a few thousand dollars.That was the real purpose of the re-write.

Arbitrary new provisions in the rules make "adapt and move on" impossible. What was before a $3-5k replacement of carbon parts with aluminum ones (adapt and move on) has been made into a $15-18k redesign of the whole car (get out and stay out.)


And as a side note: yes - there is a lot of open aero potential left in the Radon, just like there is mountains of aero potential sitting in every other FC car. Even more potential now - through the stupid 2013 rules re-write. The Radon sidepod was made higher than aerodynamically optimum so that Nathan's side impact crash structure would work better. The radiator mounting and ducting produces lift, but with changes it would produce downforce. There is tons of untapped potential elsewhere, too. Aero was held back to keep the car competitive with existing cars and to allow safety features to coexist.

Most modifications to the chassis would not impact performance at all (only safety and cost.) But if they were to, I would give Radon my advice on a number of ways to recover any lost performance.

[griceiv]

Arbitrary new provisions in the rules make "adapt and move on" impossible. What was before a $3-5k replacement of carbon parts with aluminum ones (adapt and move on) has been made into a $15-18k redesign of the whole car (get out and stay out.)

18 thousand dollars, really? i'm quite certain that ~20 bucks worth of steel tubing and an hour with a cut off wheel would make the car legal. it just wouldn't be the stressed panel engineering master piece that it currently tries to be.

I can't believe I actually read every post in this thread and I don't even want to own an FC...I've got problems.

[iamuwere]

Mr Perry, either you are being obstinent about the rules and reading things that are not there or those panels do more than just providing impact protection.

You have been offered help in this matter by several good builders and designers (that do or do note build FC cars). Perhaps it is time to just post some open pictures of the car and get some outside engineering help because your costs to rebuild a couple of panels is more than most builders charge for a whole chassis.

Jim

FE and soon to be FC (I even looked into getting a Radon but I needed another 6 inches of roll hoop height)

[rperry]

18 thousand dollars, really? i'm quite certain that ~20 bucks worth of steel tubing and an hour with a cut off wheel would make the car legal. it just wouldn't be the stressed panel engineering master piece that it currently tries to be.

For a hackjob, sure. But the whole car has to be redesigned, re-analyzed, re-tooled, etc. Existing cars would have to be completely disassembled and that's a lot of labor hours. And what for?
-To make the car safer? No.
-To reduce costs? No.
-To even out competition? No.

This rule is there for excluding the Radon only.

You have been offered help in this matter by several good builders and designers (that do or do note build FC cars). Perhaps it is time to just post some open pictures of the car and get some outside engineering help because your costs to rebuild a couple of panels is more than most builders charge for a whole chassis.

The numbers I gave come from a Radon owner who approached both Radon and another shop to do the retrofit work. Like I said, the panels could have survived with just a material replacement, until someone decided to re-write the rules and make it much more difficult than that.

Why did rules for metallic panel mounting need to change, after being the same for 25 years?

[tstarke4]

This morning, after my 48 hour self-ban expired, I logged in and received a PM from this thread containing an Advanced Medical Directive and Limited Power of Attorney. In short, this thread is terminally ill and does not wish to be resuscitated. Upon its passing, please do not send flowers. Donations should be made to ApexSpeed.

[griceiv]

For a hackjob, sure. But the whole car has to be redesigned, re-analyzed, re-tooled, etc. Existing cars would have to be completely disassembled and that's a lot of labor hours. And what for?
-To make the car safer? No.
-To reduce costs? No.
-To even out competition? No.

This rule is there for excluding the Radon only.

-to make the car legal for the class? Yes.

It is exceedingly clear to me, as an outsider, that the class does not want stressed panel chassis construction, except for exactly where and exactly how specified. Seems a little short sighted to hang the entire design of the car on the interpretation of a single word in the rules with absolutely no backup plan. Either way there's a hell of a lot of room between 18k and 20 bucks to make something work. Might be a hack job for sure, but it's 20 bucks and legal. I'm certain that if i were a customer i'd take a 20 dollar hack job and spend the other $17980 on unleashing all the aero potential i could.

BTW, Cal Poly SLO or Pomona?

[starkejt]

Sorry, this thread requires an Arbitrary Power of Attorney to authorize such decisions.

[Rick Iverson]

When you're wrestling with a pig in the mud, it may just occur to you that perhaps the pig is enjoying it. Just say'in.

[Wren]

As far as panels attached to the frame goes, the 6" rule was eliminated (what you quote is bodywork.)

No. He is quoting 9.1.1.B.3. The section titled Chassis/Frame. 9.1.1.B.4 is bodywork. That is just wrong.

This was done to keep the Radon from being brought into compliance.

Why do you think this was done? Who and why are the people so desperate to keep the Radon out?

Wren, you know it cannot be done. Everyone who reads the rules knows it can not be done.

I don't honestly believe that you have read the rules, reference the first part of this post. I actually think that there is a chance that it can be done.

That is completely false. When the Radon was being built, there was no clear prohibition of carbon,

Yes, I can see how the phrase "The use of composite materials using carbon and/or Kevlar reinforcement is prohibited" was so ambiguous.

The numbers I gave come from a Radon owner who approached both Radon and another shop to do the retrofit work.

Sell people illegal cars and then charge them for retrofitting. Interesting business model.

Why did rules for metallic panel mounting need to change, after being the same for 25 years?

Why do you keep asking this here instead of taking my suggestion and calling the people who have the answer.

This morning, after my 48 hour self-ban expired, I logged in and received a PM from this thread containing an Advanced Medical Directive and Limited Power of Attorney. In short, this thread is terminally ill and does not wish to be resuscitated. Upon its passing, please do not send flowers. Donations should be made to ApexSpeed.

I think someone might be trying to get it locked. Doug doesn't move threads to the graveyard though, so the information will still be there.

When you're wrestling with a pig in the mud, it may just occur to you that perhaps the pig is enjoying it. Just say'in.

I am kind of enjoying it. I don't know why you have to call me a pig though

Seems a little short sighted to hang the entire design of the car on the interpretation of a single word in the rules with absolutely no backup plan.

Well, they did also have some emails from a CRB member, which are as meaningless as going to the stewards or the COA with posts printed out from this forum.

I do hope that I get an opportunity to protest the Radon at a club race. If for no other reason than to see the look on stewards faces when the Radon guys try to advance emails from an old CRB member as proof of anything. Maybe when the COA slaps them down they will just be able to copy and paste this text from the March 2013 ruling of another builder who fell victim to the exact same mistake:

While the SCCA Technical Staff and the CRB do try to answer as many questions as possible from the competitors, it is imperative they continue to remind competitors and constructors that Section 8.1.4 was put in place to specifically prevent situations such as this

I hope that this thread and rperry's post are informative to Radon customers and everyone else about how everyone ended up in this mess.

[rperry]

It is exceedingly clear to me, as an outsider, that the class does not want stressed panel chassis construction, except for exactly where and exactly how specified.

Indeed, which is why the 6" rule was written way back in 1986 - to prevent significant frame strengthening by welding in panels, etc. Then there are other parts where panels (like the floor pan) MUST be structurally mounted closer than 6." The frequency of mounting points was the determinant of whether something was stiffening the chassis too much or not, and it was in place nearly 3 decades.

Why did they change what worked for over 25 years?

No. He is quoting 9.1.1.B.3. The section titled Chassis/Frame. 9.1.1.B.4 is bodywork. That is just wrong.

9.1.1.B.3 may be titled Chassis/frame, but the section he quotes is obviously referring to body panels and their attachment method.

Reeinforced body, consisting of at least two layers of 5 ounce, bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame. (5 or more layers are highly recommended.) For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than 6 inch centers. The steel tubes used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material.

I don't honestly believe that you have read the rules, reference the first part of this post. I actually think that there is a chance that it can be done.

This is really bloody simple for anyone who takes the time to read the rules. The Radon panels CANNOT be re manufactured out of aluminum and installed to the frame, because the definition of nonstructural mounting that has been in place since 1986 was changed for 2013. By this new definition, Radon panels OF ANY MATERIAL would be illegal. Here is the section which targets the radon and accomplishes nothing else:

No other exterior panels (excepting body work) shall be permitted in the area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the forward most bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead.
Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and anti-intrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or installed in such a manner that they serve any structural purpose other than that of anti-intrusion. In the absence of such panels the chassis must be capable of performing to the same level or degree as when they are installed.

Yes, I can see how the phrase "The use of composite materials using carbon and/or Kevlar reinforcement is prohibited" was so ambiguous.

That was for the frame and chassis. There was never a prohibition of carbon for brackets. That had to be added in through a clarification. As Daryl notes:

"The only reason a specific rule is amended or clarified is to prevent or allow something today that they didn't prevent or allow yesterday. Even errors and omissions prevent or allow something today that they didn't yesterday."

Why do you keep asking this here instead of taking my suggestion and calling the people who have the answer. I hope that this thread and rperry's post are informative to Radon customers and everyone else about how everyone ended up in this mess.

I agree. People deserve to see how after the fact additions to the rules have made it impossible to bring the Radon into SCCA compliance. I am pointing out to people reading this thread how the rules were re-written to fence out the Radon.

[Wren]

9.1.1.B.3 may be titled Chassis/frame, but the section he quotes is obviously referring to body panels and their attachment method.

It references side impact protection and their attachment to the frame. For instance if someone were to mount aluminum panels of at least .060" 6061-T6 on 6" centers to the outside of their frame it would be absolutely legal.

That was for the frame and chassis. There was never a prohibition of carbon for brackets.

There was always a prohibition for carbon in brackets used in the chassis.

That had to be added in through a clarification. As Daryl notes:

"The only reason a specific rule is amended or clarified is to prevent or allow something today that they didn't prevent or allow yesterday. Even errors and omissions prevent or allow something today that they didn't yesterday."

I ignored that to be nice and to keep the thread from getting even more pedantic, but he is wrong about that. The statement is so strange and incorrect that it is bizarre. You might want to go back to the dictionary and look up what the word clarification means. All that a clarification does is make the rules that have always been there more clear. A clarification doesn't change the rules.

[dc]

I'm going to go against my better judgement and ask a really stupid question that I honestly do not know the answer to...


Exactly how many running Radons are out there today that are attempting to or want to regularly and actively compete in SCCA club events?

[Purple Frog]

Doing my part to get this insanity up to 20,000 hits.

[rperry]

It references side impact protection and their attachment to the frame. For instance if someone were to mount aluminum panels of at least .060" 6061-T6 on 6" centers to the outside of their frame it would be absolutely legal.

It would be illegal because of the following. Why do you consistently to refuse to recognize this part of the rules?

GCR_9.1.1.3.f: Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and anti-intrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or installed in such a manner that they serve any structural purpose other than that of anti-intrusion.

I have a feeling that if Radon actually went ahead and replaced their panels with aluminum, you would be claiming under that rule that the panels is illegal.

[tstarke4]

Now we are getting somewhere. There are tons of great old train wreck pictures. Post your favorites!

[BURKY]

Indeed, which is why the 6" rule was written way back in 1986 - to prevent significant frame strengthening by welding in panels, etc. Then there are other parts where panels (like the floor pan) MUST be structurally mounted closer than 6." The frequency of mounting points was the determinant of whether something was stiffening the chassis too much or not, and it was in place nearly 3 decades.

Why did they change what worked for over 25 years?



9.1.1.B.3 may be titled Chassis/frame, but the section he quotes is obviously referring to body panels and their attachment method.

This is really bloody simple for anyone who takes the time to read the rules. The Radon panels CANNOT be re manufactured out of aluminum and installed to the frame, because the definition of nonstructural mounting that has been in place since 1986 was changed for 2013. By this new definition, Radon panels OF ANY MATERIAL would be illegal. Here is the section which targets the radon and accomplishes nothing else:

That was for the frame and chassis. There was never a prohibition of carbon for brackets. That had to be added in through a clarification. As Daryl notes:

"The only reason a specific rule is amended or clarified is to prevent or allow something today that they didn't prevent or allow yesterday. Even errors and omissions prevent or allow something today that they didn't yesterday."

I agree. People deserve to see how after the fact additions to the rules have made it impossible to bring the Radon into SCCA compliance. I am pointing out to people reading this thread how the rules were re-written to fence out the Radon.

It would be illegal because of the following. Why do you consistently to refuse to recognize this part of the rules?

GCR_9.1.1.3.f: Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and anti-intrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or installed in such a manner that they serve any structural purpose other than that of anti-intrusion.

I have a feeling that if Radon actually went ahead and replaced their panels with aluminum, you would be claiming under that rule that the panels is illegal.

[Daryl DeArman]

I ignored that to be nice and to keep the thread from getting even more pedantic, but he is wrong about that. The statement is so strange and incorrect that it is bizarre. You might want to go back to the dictionary and look up what the word clarification means. All that a clarification does is make the rules that have always been there more clear. A clarification doesn't change the rules.

I think you are too emotionaly connected/invested to this situation to realize the validity of my statement.

[KevinFirlein]

Doug to answer your question the answer is somewhere between zero and 1. That 1 being Jimmy. I have only seen 5 of the 7 cars period. the blue house car ( which is owned be the Teeters) Bob wrights, Peter Gonzalez's, Phil Picard's, and Jimmy's( which is for sale). Yes Bob likes to run florida in January but he doesnt run club racing much. Hell the entire reason the pro series exists is becasue Bob was sick of club racing.

The other 2 Radons I have never seen but I hope I know who owns them or I will be dissappointed with the noise one of the people have made regarding the entire issue offline.

[Wren]

It would be illegal because of the following. Why do you consistently to refuse to recognize this part of the rules?

I am not consistently ignoring that part of the rules. I keep trying to tell you that if you do something that is specifically allowed in the rules, then you will not have any problem with compliance.

I recognize the rule that you keep quoting. But an aluminum panel of at least .060" 6061-T6 mounted to the frame on 6" centers is legal as long as the car does not fall apart without the panel and as long as the panel is not performing another prohibited function.

As long as someone can point to a section of the rules that allows for what they are doing. They have nothing to worry about from other competitors.

GCR_9.1.1.3.f: Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and anti-intrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or installed in such a manner that they serve any structural purpose other than that of anti-intrusion.

I have a feeling that if Radon actually went ahead and replaced their panels with aluminum, you would be claiming under that rule that the panels is illegal.

Because you and other Radon have constructed this elaborate conspiracy theory that is not true. If the Radon mounted a .060 or thicker aluminum panel on 6" centers to the side of the car, then that rule would not even apply to it. The only way that someone is going to complain about the legality of those panels is if the panels perform some other, illegal function. Very few people know every function the panels perform, and I am not one of those people. The correct solution is to send in a thorough compliance review to the SCCA and find out. What I think and what you think about those panels compliance does not matter.

I think you are too emotionaly connected/invested to this situation to realize the validity of my statement.

I don't have to be emotionally invested to realize that a clarification doesn't change the rules. The SCCA process doesn't allow for that and neither does common sense. Again, the rule book did not have to be changed to make the car illegal. What you said is a pretty wild claim without a shred of proof.

[Daryl DeArman]

I don't have to be emotionally invested to realize that a clarification doesn't change the rules. The SCCA process doesn't allow for that and neither does common sense. Again, the rule book did not have to be changed to make the car illegal. What you said is a pretty wild claim without a shred of proof.

Wren, look at it outside the context of FC so you can wrap your head around what I'm saying.

When a rule cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean something other than what the rule writers' intended, the rule is not clarified. The rule is deemed "adequate as written".

A clarification of a rule to prevent the above reasonable interpretation is a rule change, despite what the SCCA process may label it.

[Wren]

Wren, look at it outside the context of FC so you can wrap your head around what I'm saying.

When a rule cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean something other than what the rule writers' intended, the rule is not clarified. The rule is deemed "adequate as written".

At least now I understand where you are coming from and what your mistake is.

No one who has ever written in asking for a clarification like I did has ever been told that the rule is "adequate as written."

You do not understand the process.

The phrase "adequate as written" is used for people who are suggesting rule changes through the CRB letter writing process.

A clarification of a rule to prevent the above reasonable interpretation is a rule change, despite what the SCCA process may label it.

Take the example of the question that I asked about the meaning of nonferrous. If someone were to have protested the Radon's shock mount at a club event in 2010, 2011, or 2012 the shock mount would have been ruled non-compliant. The clarification that I asked for did not change the rule. The rule always meant that.

[Tim FF19]

Whenever I feel like my life is too confusing I come here to feel better........

[Daryl DeArman]

At least now I understand where you are coming from and what your mistake is.

I chose my words poorly in an attempt to make my point more clear to you.

Take the example of the question that I asked about the meaning of nonferrous. If someone were to have protested the Radon's shock mount at a club event in 2010, 2011, or 2012 the shock mount would have been ruled non-compliant. The clarification that I asked for did not change the rule. The rule always meant that.

I really hesitate to go back down the ferrous/non-ferrous/not ferrous road again since we are on the same page there.

Perspective.

IF what the rule meant agreed with your interpretation (as in this case) you'd argue that changing the words via a clarification didn't change the rule.

IF what the rule meant was different than your reasonable interpretation, and subsequently the words were changed to now prevent the same reasonable interpretation, you'd argue the rule was changed.

[Daryl DeArman]

Whenever I feel like my life is too confusing I come here to feel better........

Sometimes people just want to see somebody wrestle a pig or can't help but stare at the train wreck.