This is most disappointing.
Bueller, Bueller...anyone...Bueller?
This is most disappointing.
Bueller, Bueller...anyone...Bueller?
Well, the YouTube of Kelly's Heroes is very funny. Time for me head out to the garage to work on the old (like me) Reynard....
"An analog man living in a digital world"
It appears that the Radons were allowed to race at Sebring. Two of them appear in Pepperbowe's photos.
"I love the smell of race fuel in the morning. It smells like victory!"
Barry Wilcock
Pit Crew: Tumenas Motorsports/Houndspeed, Fat Boy Racing
the plan always called for them to be allowed to race as is to get them to bring the cars.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Runoffs 1 Gold 3 Silver 3 bronze, 8 Divisional , 6 Regional Champs , 3x Drivers of the year awards
This was just supposed to be an inspection. No determination of legality was to be made at Sebring. The inspectors are going to report back on what they saw.
Pics
Barry:Originally Posted by Beartrax
Can you send me the link to the pictures please.
Thanks,
Jimmy
Jimmy Hanrahan
jimh3063@yahoo.com
PM'd you.
"I love the smell of race fuel in the morning. It smells like victory!"
Barry Wilcock
Pit Crew: Tumenas Motorsports/Houndspeed, Fat Boy Racing
So...the Radon was not legal under the old rules.
To clarify what today's fastrack actually means: the 2013 rules
rewrite actually makes it easier for the Radon to be legal.
Making the Radon legal under the 2012 rules would have required
substantially more work.
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...march-coa1.pdf
And I just saw this in the full Fastrack:
Cars bearing the following homologation numbers: 110056, 110057, 110058, 110059, 110060, 110061, and 110062 must comply with 2012 GCR FC rules, must be “as delivered” from the manufacturer and must meet current safety and weight requirements.
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...ack-march1.pdf
Grandfathering cars in to FC isn't considered a rule change?
I'm confused..as normal. So the car was found to be illegal as "delivered", based on 2012 rules. yes? However, is allowed to run as long as it is "as delivered", where "delivered" = "illegal"? Huh?
So to be "legal", it must be "illegal"?
I dont get it, they dont meet the 2012 GCR so how can they run as delivered ?
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
I think they just made illegal, legal.
Cool.
Take another look at it. The Radon is still illegal per the 2012 GCR.
This is an appeasement for all of the horrible accusations and lawsuit threats that Radon threw around rather than actually figuring out if the car was legal.
Nothing about the added spec line for the Radon says anything about the legality of the car. That is not a CRB function. The COA is the only entity that can declare something to be legal. The only thing that the new spec line allows is for the Radon to compete under the new spec line if it meets the 2012 GCR.
If someone were to protest the Radon at a club race, it would be very straightforward to win the protest with a copy of this months Fastrack.
Adding this spec line is still a very bad precedent.
The Radon is bound by a set of rules that is no longer even available on the SCCA website?
As delivered? Did anyone bother to document the "as delivered" condition? What are the allowable changes? Ride Height? Wing design? Shocks?
Maybe I should go buy one of these cars that is available. I can swear that it was delivered with a 4AGE in it. I'm going to be an FC champ!
Ok, I think I follow.
BUT...why put a spec line if it (the spec line) was not legal? If it (the Radon) is in there (The GCR Spec line), doesn't that mean it (both the Radon and the Spec line) are legal?
The spec line was put in because of the constant threats of a lawsuit. I am disappointed in the BOD bending to something that they would have won easily.
I think this was more of a left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.
The spec line is legal, but that is meaningless. The Radon is not legal per the 2012 GCR, they would have to build a new chassis and replace the carbon brackets with aluminum to meet the 2012 GCR.
Under the 2013 GCR they only have to replace the carbon with aluminum.
Notice the ruling under the 2012 GCR for the Speads' floor? I guess that Speads should have just threatened to sue more and they might have gotten some kind of exception also.
well based on the rulings the Radon at the very least needs an entire new lower frame rail and entire new upper frame assy where the front shocks mount to meet the 2012 GCR which is of course what some said all along.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
That would not be in the as-delivered condition anymore if I understand the new rule correctly.
then how is it supposed to meet 2012 GCR which it has been proven it doesnt, and be in as delivered condition when both are requirements ? sounds like yet another rule someone wrote w/o thinking.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
I think that may be the point.
For years we have been listening to the Radon camp claim that the car was legal and the rules re-writes are specifically targeted at making the car illegal.
If those claims are true, then this new spec line is exactly what they have been asking for. If the car is legal, then they don't have anything to worry about and they will be allowed to run the Radon in club races.
Unfortunately, in the same month that this spec line appeared there was a COA ruling published that definitively proves the Radon was not legal per the 2012 GCR.
Maybe someone wants to list me as the entrant for their COTA entry into the FF/FC group?
I still suspect that the new spec line is nothing but a response to the constant Radon threats. It has no reflection on the Radon's legality per the 2012 GCR. The spec line appearing in the same fastrack as the ruling proving it was never legal just makes it funnier.sounds like yet another rule someone wrote w/o thinking.
I don't see how being an entrant in FF would help as Ff is running in groupe one & FC is running in group 6.
If I added you as my entrant for FC what benefit would that be to me other then having many Radon owners upset with me?
Steve Bamford
I just checked the entry list & maybe I missed it but I don't see any Radons entered anyways for COTA! Only 7 Van Diemens entered in FC, no other manufactures.
Steve Bamford
Oops. I had forgotten that there were three open wheel groups.
I don't expect anyone to actually list me as their entrant and I am going to be busy at COTA anyways, although the protest is a no-brainer.
I can't imagine a benefit beyond the importance of the rules.If I added you as my entrant for FC what benefit would that be to me other then having many Radon owners upset with me?
While I don't doubt that some of the Radon owners would be upset, I actually believe that they have no right to be. I have received multiple invitations over the years to protest the car and claims that they would abide by the COA ruling. Essentially, I protested the car and the COA said the Radon isn't legal. Somehow I doubt that now having definitive proof that the Radon is illegal will change anything.
You are right, there are no Radons entered anymore. The last time I looked at the list, there was a single Radon entry.
I was also refering to the not so secret Sebring insepections and the not so secret result by the 2 completely independent CRB members who apparently also had serious doubts about the Radon per the 2012 GCR.
Please dont ask to be added to as anyones entrant for any event. I've seen that be done and its always a bad deal. You are of course free to protest any car at a race you attend but dont go looking for one. I am gonna go ahead and guess you were joking though to make a point so no harm done.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
I think it would be pretty much all & not some Radon owners who would be upset at this.
I can't speak for anyone who bought these cars however I would guess that when they made the purchase they thought they were buying into the latest & greatest car that was up & coming but most likely believed it would be considered legal in SCCA. I have to feel for those who now may want to run in SCCA but are afraid of showing up & being protested.
I understand why you wish to protest the cars & why rules are in place & need to be followed as well...but it is still a tough spot for the owners of these cars.
Steve Bamford
I wish I were going so I could give Wren his desired powers. Just for the lulz.
they could always sue the guy who designed and sold them a car that was illegal for the sanctioning body that it was supposed to be used for. None of this is the fault of guys who werent investors or part of the build process and bought a car based on the advertising claims, a few of whom are friends of mine.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Yes, most likely. I did not design, market, and sell a non-compliant car, but I have understood that pointing out that a car is illegal is frowned on much more than selling a $100k FS car as an FC car. I think it is kind of sad that protesting is more frowned on than having a non-compliant car, but I have no illusions that the reality is anything but that.
I agree. While I believe that the illegal parts of the car were obvious from the beginning, people bought these cars in good faith that they were buying legal cars. All of this is a reason for them to receive a refund on their cars, or free parts to make it legal, not for people to get special exceptions to the rules.I can't speak for anyone who bought these cars however I would guess that when they made the purchase they thought they were buying into the latest & greatest car that was up & coming but most likely believed it would be considered legal in SCCA. I have to feel for those who now may want to run in SCCA but are afraid of showing up & being protested.
I understand why you wish to protest the cars & why rules are in place & need to be followed as well...but it is still a tough spot for the owners of these cars.
Going to COTA is about working hard. I wouldn't actually want any kind of distraction during a race weekend.
I think this is over now. Features of the Radon have been evaluated by the COA and found illegal. There is no real room for discussion on the legality of the Radon anymore.
I agree thre should not be special exceptions & the cars should have to be made legal. How the manufacture handles this with their customers is between them & not for us to determine or even really comment.
I agree it should not be handled by a rule rewrite/adjustment/grandfathering.
That being said I still want the cars out on the track to race against.
Steve Bamford
Well, we are going to COTA to watch the racing. This will be an exciting weekend. I certainly hope the focus is on the racing... Post-race protests, just a side note... Here's to close, hard, safe, 'legal' racing
"An analog man living in a digital world"
COTA
I was the Radon signed up for COTA. I am running the SVRA support race at the 12 hours Sebring (in a vintage car) the following week and thought I was biting off a little too much.
I'll be at an SCCA race soon after if Wren wants to protest me.
Wren, I'll try to post my schedule for you. We may as well get this over with.
Jimmy Hanrahan
Jimmy Hanrahan
jimh3063@yahoo.com
I don't know how else to say this, but it is over. There is only one group within the SCCA that can say what is legal and what is not legal and they have spoken.
The car did not pass muster with the CRB at the Sebring inspection. Now it has been ruled definitively illegal by the COA. There is not really anything left to say.
I won't be at as many races this year since it is a year to build a car. If our paths can cross, maybe we can work something out.
Last edited by Wren; 02.20.13 at 11:31 PM.
Maybe (probably) I missed it, but where in this months' Fasttrack has the Radon been ruled illegal by the CoA? If you are speaking about 3 features in drawings you submitted, the verbiage in the fasttrack suggests these are drawings of a hypothetical chassis....and those drawings are what they ruled non-compliant. If the Radon just so happens to utilize those exact/similar features then wouldn't the Radon need to be protested? Then what happens when said Radon owner points to the spec line that says his car is legal since it is "as-delivered" and since the CoA ruling came in Feb 2013 how do we say it wasn't legal in 2012?
Nowhere does the spec line for the Radon say that it is legal as long as it is in its as delivered condition. There are three conditions for those chassis to compete according to the spec line:
1. "must comply with the 2012 GCR"
2. "must be "as delivered" from the factory"
3. "must meet current safety and weight requirements"
If they do not meet all of those three requirements then they are non-compliant.
The first sentence says that the ruling is per the 2012 GCR. There are multiple references to 2012 in the compliance ruling. That is how we can know that it was not legal in 2012.
I submitted this same request using the word Radon for part of the review (there were also other things that I needed to know). They kicked it back to me as I do not own a Radon. I resubmitted the same thing with the only real change being to remove the word Radon. This ruling is generic to FF/FC construction rules under the 2012 GCR, not to any specific chassis.
I will post some of the stewards ruling and it will be clearer that the Radon is not legal per the 2012 GCR.
Regardless of whether I think the Radon should or shouldn't be legal what the heck is that spec line trying to accomplish if the CoA has ruled it illegal per 2012 GCR? How can you satisfy both item (1) and (2) simultaneously?
From the beginning of the rules re-write process the most prevalent argument against the rules set has been that this is some complex conspiracy perpetrated by the 4 Citation owners who were on the FSRAC because they were afraid of the Radon. I know this to be untrue and it does not pass even the most cursory examination. I am thankful that this compliance review can help put those claims to bed.
To be clear, the 2013 FF/FC rules rewrite did not make the Radon illegal. It actually made it easier for the Radon to be legal.
One of the controversial parts of the Radon has been their use of Carbon Fiber as a bracket. Radon Sport has claimed that the allowance for "non-ferrous" brackets in 9.1.1.D.7.d permitted them to use carbon fiber.
I refer to some of their quotes here.
In their own words:
Please note that I have abbreviated the quotations from people while I believe that I have preserved the original meaning. Links to the original posts are provided
http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=194
http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=183
http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=196
Now that the Court of Appeals has decided, I wonder who is still willing to accept their decision?
http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=134
This is a reference to the new wording in the new rule set that says: "They(brackets) shall be metal"
Given those quotes, it is clear that the Radon needs "non-ferrous" to include carbon fiber brackets for their car to be legal per the 2012 GCR.
Here is a quote that I believe to be especially important given the ruling from the Stewards:
http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=211
I have attached the ruling from the the Stewards regarding the meaning of non-ferrous that was upheld by the COA. I have only edited it to remove the name and contact information of the ASME person who was consulted by the COA. Someone from the ASME confirmed that they do not consider the term to include composites in the term "non-ferrous." See the following quote.
The Stewards went on to search the ASTM website for instances where non-ferrous was used to describe composite materials. They did not find them.
Maybe if someone were to look far enough they might find a refereed journal article somewhere that uses non-ferrous to describe carbon fiber materials, but I was unsuccessful. It is certainly not correct to claim that it is an industry standard practice to use the phrase non-ferrous to describe something made of carbon fiber.
The bottom line is that the phrase "non-ferrous" in 9.1.1.D.7.d of the 2012 GCR does not permit carbon fiber brackets.
You cannot satisfy items (1) and (2) at the same time.
Since 2010 we have heard from Radon that their car was legal. I have never believed that to be true and there is now definitive proof that this is not true. I think this spec line eliminates any possibility for them to claim that they have had the rules unfairly changed to exclude their car.
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that it is nothing more than coincidence that their spec line was added on the same month that the COA ruling was published that rules their car illegal. I can assure you that I did not coordinate the timing of my compliance review with anyone else. It would have been published two months ago if not for the little hiccup in needing to remove the word "Radon" from my compliance review.
SCCA publishes the phone numbers of board and committee members on the website for us. Over the last year, I have found it much easier to pick up the phone and call SCCA people. I hope to have an opportunity tomorrow to pick up the phone and call someone on the CRB to get some clarification on just how we had a ninja rules change thrust on us without member input or waiting for the next year's GCR.
This spec line addition appears to be in response to a letter from Hanrahan. Jim, would you be willing to share what it is that you asked the CRB for?
Share
Wren:
>This spec line addition appears to be in response to a letter from Hanrahan. Jim, would >you be willing to share what it is that you asked the CRB for?
I will post my letter to the CRB when you post the material you submitted for your compliance review. Sounds fair to me.
Jimmy
Jimmy Hanrahan
jimh3063@yahoo.com
Pass muster
Wren:
I'm not sure where you got your information.
"The car did not pass muster with the CRB at the Sebring inspection. Now it has been ruled definitively illegal by the COA. There is not really anything left to say."
I will tell you I was told something completely different by the two people who looked at both Bob Wrights and my car at Sebring. I think both of them are about as straight as they come and believe what they both told me at Sebring. I'm heading off to vintage race. The Ahole factor is a lot lower there.
Jimmy
Jimmy Hanrahan
jimh3063@yahoo.com
I don't know if you misunderstood the two people who looked at your car or if this claim is another in the vein of claims like: "I was told unequivocally that an offer was never made to grandfather in the existing cars" or claims that the Radon is legal per the 2012 GCR, but this is not correct.
You really need to pick up the phone and call some people on the CRB. While they may have thought your car could be made compliant, they did not say that it was compliant. Their task was just to look the car over and report back. It's worth remembering that the CRB writes the rules while the COA remains the only group within the SCCA that may interpret them.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
