FC/ FF rules passed 12 / 0

[jimh3063]

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.

Wren:
I understand you are all knowing, all seeing and all hearing but both of them said the car was legal by the Sept 2012 rules. Both of them stated exactly that from their own mouths in front of more than just me. You know who both of them are. Ask them instead of running your mouth about a conversation you were not part of or heard.

Jimmy

[problemchild]

The threat of "Son of Radon" seems to have been thwarted.

Nathan seems to have moved on.

SCCA has a history of grandfathering cars, although usually controversial and hypocritical, it is a nice way to let problems fade away. I personally have no problem grandfathering oddball uncompetitive cars and feel this is a nice gesture for 6 people with these "problemchilds".

Maybe this issue/discussion can just fade away .... .... ....

[jimh3063]

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?

Daryl, well said. Since Wren will not show us what he submitted, we do not know if the Radon uses exactly the same 3 design features. I can say as an OWNER of one and who has ACTUALLY seen one, the roll hoop is different on the Wren designed hypothetical car.

Jimmy

[reidhazelton]

So then I guess the only way to really put this whole thing to bed is to protest one an SCCA event. After that, there is nothing left to argue no matter which was it goes.

All in favor, say "EY".....


All oppose....

[Steve Bamford]

So then I guess the only way to really put this whole thing to bed is to protest one an SCCA event. After that, there is nothing left to argue no matter which was it goes.

All in favor, say "EY".....


All oppose....

I say let them run whomever has bought one. I believe all owners bought them in good faith that they would be able to use these cars in SCCA legally. Let people who run the sport as a hobby enjoy themselves & use their cars. If it is deemed an advantage then give them a weight penalty or something as I understand it the changes required are very extensive.

If all the cars were out there running at the pointy end of the grid I may have more of an issue with it & yes I understand it takes time to develop a car too...but it has been 2 years now hasn't it?

I can only imagine having to worry every weekend you show up if you are going to be protested, that must not add to the racing experience.

[jimh3063]

He's the deal, If I beat someone in my Radon who does not crash and is actually talented then beers for all.

I do think the cars have a lot of potential in the right hands.
Those hands just are not attached to my body.


Jimmy

[reidhazelton]

I say let them run whomever has bought one. I believe all owners bought them in good faith that they would be able to use these cars in SCCA legally. Let people who run the sport as a hobby enjoy themselves & use their cars. If it is deemed an advantage then give them a weight penalty or something as I understand it the changes required are very extensive.

If all the cars were out there running at the pointy end of the grid I may have more of an issue with it & yes I understand it takes time to develop a car too...but it has been 2 years now hasn't it?

I can only imagine having to worry every weekend you show up if you are going to be protested, that must not add to the racing experience.

I was thinking the exact same thing..."was". I highly doubt guys like Jimmy bought one with with any other notion than they were getting a legal car. From what we have all seen, Nathan claimed to have CRB decisions in that super secret sealed envelope that gave rulings on the car's features (btw...where is that super secret envelope now?) and I would bet Nathan used that to influence buyers. He seems to have a track record of using strong rhetoric and self promotion (remember the "Niki wouldn't stand a chance" comment). I do feel bad for guys like Jimmy. They fully assumed they were getting the latest and greatest legal car and now are left with an $80,000 FS or F2000CS car.

I was thinking we should let them run as, despite it's lack of legality, they don't seem to be dominant with a "mediocre" driver (not aimed at any one driver, just using Nathan's word). It does not seem that they are winning, so let them run...

But then I started to think about that. If they are allowed to run because they are not winning races, what does that say about how we view the competitors? It is ok to lose to an illegal car if you are mid pack, but if you are a front runner then that is not ok. To me, that is pretty unfair to the guys just off the front pack who work their butts off just as hard as the front runners, and it says that their racing matters less than the winners. It seems to take away legitimacy and importance of the competitors in the other 3/4 of the field. What if a Radon takes points away from a F200CS driver who had a bad race and looses the championship by 1 point? Or, if it costs someone a Runoffs invitation (not that it is really dependent on points anymore, but just to illustrate a point).

If it is not legal, it should not run. Allowing it to would be no different than a guy with an FF and an illegal engine be allowed to run as long as he does not win or do to well. It opens too many other areas that are better left closed.

Like I said, I do feel bad for the guys who bought one on good faith they were getting a legal car. But, if it is not legal I don't think other competitors should have to pay for part of that. If I had $80k on the line I would be irate. Not sure of the legal recourse Radon buyers have, but it sure seems they were sold something that appears fraudulent.

Legal cars only. My 1 cent.

[Wren]

Wren:
I understand you are all knowing, all seeing and all hearing but both of them said the car was legal by the Sept 2012 rules. Both of them stated exactly that from their own mouths in front of more than just me. You know who both of them are. Ask them instead of running your mouth about a conversation you were not part of or heard.

Jimmy

I have taken your advice and asked them. I spent part of my morning on the phone calling CRB members. No one from the CRB said that your car was legal. They also did not say that it was illegal. I suspect that you heard what you wanted to hear.

Their phone numbers are on the SCCA website if anyone else wants to call them and ask.

Again, their task was to go and observe the car and report back. That is what they did.

I am going to repeat something that has been said multiple times and is clear in the GCR, but seems to be often forgotten: The CRB's mission is not to determine the legality of cars or the interpretation of the rules. Their mission is to help write the rules.

I believe that the Radon manufacturers misunderstood this and it helped lead to a lot of their problems. See the following post:

http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=118

Then where does that leave us? We designed a car in good faith to the rules in place, with full knowledge and communication with a member of the CRB, and are now faced with seeing thousands of man hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment rendered worthless.

I want to correct any ambiguity in my posting quoted above.

Although I did have many communications with a member of the CRB, who was very helpful in explaining the rules and giving me both the historical and his personal interpretation of the rules, he was by no means aware of every innovation in the Radon design.

Specifically, I never discussed the specific details (shape, configuration, mounting) of the cockpit protection panels to him and he never implied they would be legal.

Nathan

Communicating with a CRB member is not usually a bad idea, unless you get one who is not well versed in the rules, which I believe is what happened here. But, it is incredibly important to remember that the opinion of that CRB member on whether or not something is legal carries no weight. The COA is in charge of rules interpretations. Period. A CRB member's opinion is no more important or binding than the opinion of any other member of this forum. Having stacks of emails from a former CRB member is as meaningless as any post on this forum.

Look at the COA opinion given regarding the floor on the Speads' chassis, also in this month's fastrack. Without knowing the exact content of any letter(email?) that Gomberg sent to Mr. Schader, it appears that Mr. Schader fell into the exact same mistake as the Radon guys.

Note the language used by the SCCA in fastrack(emphasis mine):

Mr. Schader did not consider using GCR Section 8.1.4 prior to building the car but relied on an unofficial opinion from a CRB member. 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. It is not within the power of the COA to consider any variation or wavier of the current wording of the GCR that would resolve this issue for Mr. Schader.

Mr. Schader appears to be in a very similar situation to the Radon guys. He built a car that was not legal to the 2012 GCR. Although he had been competing with it, passed annual tech, and had a log book, his car was still not legal. I wonder why the Radon seems to have been treated differently than the Speads?

Nathan seems to have moved on.

Given his recent behavior, he does not appear to have moved on at all. Just because things have not been on apexspeed does not mean that things have not been happening.

Daryl, well said. Since Wren will not show us what he submitted, we do not know if the Radon uses exactly the same 3 design features. I can say as an OWNER of one and who has ACTUALLY seen one, the roll hoop is different on the Wren designed hypothetical car.

Jimmy

I believe that my post #116 makes it clear that the Radon relies on "non-ferrous" including carbon fiber as it is stated by two Radon builders. But, here is the question that I asked in my compliance review regarding the meaning of non-ferrous.

Does the allowance in 9.1.1.D.7.d for non-ferrous materials allow the use of carbon fiber brackets, in light of the prohibition against such material in GCR 9.1.1.B.1?

Are we allowed to mount chassis/suspension components to carbon fiber brackets in FC?

Are there any questions about what this question asks or what the rules interpretation from the COA means? This is not vehicle specific, it is a very generic question regarding FF/FC construction.

I say let them run whomever has bought one. I believe all owners bought them in good faith that they would be able to use these cars in SCCA legally. Let people who run the sport as a hobby enjoy themselves & use their cars. If it is deemed an advantage then give them a weight penalty or something as I understand it the changes required are very extensive.

I understand that it is just 7 cars and that Radon has put them and the SCCA in a very hard spot, but that could be a dangerous precedent. I don't look forward at all to a possibility of ending up with a class with competition adjustments. At what point do we start to expect people to own up to their decisions? We have a place in the club for them to participate, right now, without making any changes. I think that we should not let people show up with their car and dictate what class they choose to run in by threatening lawsuits. The SCCA has classes and I do not think it unreasonable to expect people to compete in the class where their car fits.

Under the 2012 rules the car was going to need a new chassis, or at least major chassis mods and to replace the side panels and shock mount with aluminum or tubes. Under the 2013 rules the Radon only needs to replace the carbon with an aluminum bracket.

Nathan's claim in his rules clarification request from 2010 was that he had a completed design for making the side panels from aluminum and had even gone so far as to get quotes on having the parts made ($1,720 per panel). Do we really want to rewrite the rule book to allow in cars that were never compliant over such a relatively small amount? Jim has claimed in this thread (post #70) that it would require extensive mods, but there have been a lot of false claims lately and it has become quite hard to discern truth from fiction.

So then I guess the only way to really put this whole thing to bed is to protest one an SCCA event. After that, there is nothing left to argue no matter which was it goes.

All in favor, say "EY".....


All oppose....

Correct. I received confirmation this morning that the new spec line for the Radon requires them to be compliant with the 2012 GCR.

[Beartrax]

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.

Yet you continue to post on the topic...

[Wren]

Yet you continue to post on the topic...

Indeed. It appears that I thought wrong about whether or not a COA ruling would put the issue of legality to bed. Grasping at straws will continue.

[Dennis Valet]

I'm thinking of converting a Radon to FB just to see what sort of apex drama I can drum up.

[a. pettipas]

...and now are left with an $80,000 FS or F2000CS car.

I bet Radon owners wish that was their total investment.

was thinking we should let them run as, despite it's lack of legality, they don't seem to be dominant with a "mediocre" driver (not aimed at any one driver, just using Nathan's word). It does not seem that they are winning, so let them run...

But then I started to think about that. If they are allowed to run because they are not winning races, what does that say about how we view the competitors? It is ok to lose to an illegal car if you are mid pack, but if you are a front runner then that is not ok. To me, that is pretty unfair to the guys just off the front pack who work their butts off just as hard as the front runners, and it says that their racing matters less than the winners. It seems to take away legitimacy and importance of the competitors in the other 3/4 of the field. What if a Radon takes points away from a F200CS driver who had a bad race and looses the championship by 1 point? Or, if it costs someone a Runoffs invitation (not that it is really dependent on points anymore, but just to illustrate a point).

If it is not legal, it should not run. Allowing it to would be no different than a guy with an FF and an illegal engine be allowed to run as long as he does not win or do to well. It opens too many other areas that are better left closed.

Putting relative performance, or lack thereof, and fairness aside for a moment, the bigger issue should be driver safety, IMO. I personally have yet to see a Radon that passes the broomstick test, save for maybe Fabio in the works car at VIR last year. I'm perplexed over the apparent ignorance regarding this issue by those who should be most concerned; seems far more important than ferrous vs. n-f bracketry. Maybe there has been a recent extended roll-hoop retrofit for existing chassis? Maybe I should mind my own business? Radon owners reading this are, undoubtedly, nodding in agreement... I just don't want to see fellow F2000/FC competitors needlessly injured, or worse, due to an easily correctable design deficiency.

[Steve Bamford]

I was thinking the exact same thing..."was". I highly doubt guys like Jimmy bought one with with any other notion than they were getting a legal car. From what we have all seen, Nathan claimed to have CRB decisions in that super secret sealed envelope that gave rulings on the car's features (btw...where is that super secret envelope now?) and I would bet Nathan used that to influence buyers. He seems to have a track record of using strong rhetoric and self promotion (remember the "Niki wouldn't stand a chance" comment). I do feel bad for guys like Jimmy. They fully assumed they were getting the latest and greatest legal car and now are left with an $80,000 FS or F2000CS car.

I was thinking we should let them run as, despite it's lack of legality, they don't seem to be dominant with a "mediocre" driver (not aimed at any one driver, just using Nathan's word). It does not seem that they are winning, so let them run...

But then I started to think about that. If they are allowed to run because they are not winning races, what does that say about how we view the competitors? It is ok to lose to an illegal car if you are mid pack, but if you are a front runner then that is not ok. To me, that is pretty unfair to the guys just off the front pack who work their butts off just as hard as the front runners, and it says that their racing matters less than the winners. It seems to take away legitimacy and importance of the competitors in the other 3/4 of the field. What if a Radon takes points away from a F200CS driver who had a bad race and looses the championship by 1 point? Or, if it costs someone a Runoffs invitation (not that it is really dependent on points anymore, but just to illustrate a point).

If it is not legal, it should not run. Allowing it to would be no different than a guy with an FF and an illegal engine be allowed to run as long as he does not win or do to well. It opens too many other areas that are better left closed.

Like I said, I do feel bad for the guys who bought one on good faith they were getting a legal car. But, if it is not legal I don't think other competitors should have to pay for part of that. If I had $80k on the line I would be irate. Not sure of the legal recourse Radon buyers have, but it sure seems they were sold something that appears fraudulent.

Legal cars only. My 1 cent.

I fully understand why you say this & I "was" thinking the same as yourself...until I put myself in the position of being Jim or someone else that owns one.

It is well above the 80k mark by the time they are done. This is a hobby for 99.9% of us & if you think otherwise you are fooling yourself & spending your money chasing a dream. Hard to tell someone who bought a car in good faith to go away & find some where else to play.

If illegal in SCCA club does rule 20 come into play for F2KCS?

I don't agree with allowing things that are illegal to compete however I still want to race against these guys on the track rather then have them stay home so I guess that is why I say let em run! They obviously can still race, just will have to worry about being protested at the end.

& I do race in this class with a VD & do want to race against these cars so that is my dog in this hunt, wanting to continue to have more participants. I would like to think other FC racers have a similar mindset.

The roll hoop should be addressesd though as it was mentioned, prior to anything horrible happening.

[KevinFirlein]

Steve, I believe Frog already said that when we wrote the rules for 2013 pro series everything legal in 2012 would be legal in 2013 so the Radon will still have a place to race regardless.

I think the car is illegal and always have and the current months CoA rulings basically confirm my thought process , however I have also always said I have no problem racing against the radon in the pro series. I just think at times Radon owners have expressed anger and ill will at those that questioned their car when it should have been focused on the guy that sold them scrap metal if not for a forgiving pro series.

edit : the only way to change the hoop is to completely redo the car as you cant scab bars on and they arent bolt on like a VD. I am not sure but I *think* Radons version of the broomstick test is that the forward roll hoop isnt where everyone thinks it is. Its much further forward which gives a shallower angle on the inspection stick and thats how the car passes even though it looks like it fails. I've spent time looking at Bob Wrights car but was looking at other stuff and never looked into that.

[Jnovak]

Bring a Radon to my shop. We will figure out a way of making the Radon legal.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[starkejt]

I just think at times Radon owners have expressed anger and ill will at those that questioned their car when it should have been focused on the guy that sold them scrap metal if not for a forgiving pro series.

On the plus side, non-ferrous scrap isn't as far in the toilet as ferrous is.

[jimh3063]

Wren:
Did you talk to the 2 that actually looked at the cars. Because if they said that they did not tell me and more than one person at Sebring that they thought the car was legal by the Sept 2012 rules, I can help refresh their memories. It was said to more than one person with more than one person present.

I think Tony and Mirl are both standup guys. I think they would not lie for the SCCA.
I spoke with Tony more than once in my paddock area. His exact words were that he thought that Nathan pushed the envelope but he thought the car was legal by the 2012 Sept rules. He said that more than once and again in front of more than just me. I spoke with Mirl at PBIR at the Saturday party. He said that he thought the car was legal by the same standard. He did say the John LaRue had questions about the shock tray. There was more than just me there. Bob Wright also has his car reviewed by Mirl. I was not there for that. I was told by Bob that Mirl said he thought the car we legal but I cannot say I heard him say that to Bob as I was not there. I was very adamant about making sure I had people around me when I spoke to them. That was no accident. I never thought it would come to putting them on the spot and I'm still not sure it is. I think they are both standup guys and would verify these conversations.
Any conversation that was had with Bob, I'll let Bob speak to.

Did you speak with Mirl and Tony. I cannot speak to what the CRB as a group would say but I made sure there were people for both of the conversations I had.

I am on vacation with my family and you have sucked up about as much time as I am willing to give.

Jimmy

I have taken your advice and asked them. I spent part of my morning on the phone calling CRB members. No one from the CRB said that your car was legal. They also did not say that it was illegal. I suspect that you heard what you wanted to hear.

Their phone numbers are on the SCCA website if anyone else wants to call them and ask.

Again, their task was to go and observe the car and report back. That is what they did.

I am going to repeat something that has been said multiple times and is clear in the GCR, but seems to be often forgotten: The CRB's mission is not to determine the legality of cars or the interpretation of the rules. Their mission is to help write the rules.

I believe that the Radon manufacturers misunderstood this and it helped lead to a lot of their problems. See the following post:

http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=118



Communicating with a CRB member is not usually a bad idea, unless you get one who is not well versed in the rules, which I believe is what happened here. But, it is incredibly important to remember that the opinion of that CRB member on whether or not something is legal carries no weight. The COA is in charge of rules interpretations. Period. A CRB member's opinion is no more important or binding than the opinion of any other member of this forum. Having stacks of emails from a former CRB member is as meaningless as any post on this forum.

Look at the COA opinion given regarding the floor on the Speads' chassis, also in this month's fastrack. Without knowing the exact content of any letter(email?) that Gomberg sent to Mr. Schader, it appears that Mr. Schader fell into the exact same mistake as the Radon guys.

Note the language used by the SCCA in fastrack(emphasis mine):


Mr. Schader appears to be in a very similar situation to the Radon guys. He built a car that was not legal to the 2012 GCR. Although he had been competing with it, passed annual tech, and had a log book, his car was still not legal. I wonder why the Radon seems to have been treated differently than the Speads?




Given his recent behavior, he does not appear to have moved on at all. Just because things have not been on apexspeed does not mean that things have not been happening.





I believe that my post #116 makes it clear that the Radon relies on "non-ferrous" including carbon fiber as it is stated by two Radon builders. But, here is the question that I asked in my compliance review regarding the meaning of non-ferrous.



Are there any questions about what this question asks or what the rules interpretation from the COA means? This is not vehicle specific, it is a very generic question regarding FF/FC construction.




I understand that it is just 7 cars and that Radon has put them and the SCCA in a very hard spot, but that could be a dangerous precedent. I don't look forward at all to a possibility of ending up with a class with competition adjustments. At what point do we start to expect people to own up to their decisions? We have a place in the club for them to participate, right now, without making any changes. I think that we should not let people show up with their car and dictate what class they choose to run in by threatening lawsuits. The SCCA has classes and I do not think it unreasonable to expect people to compete in the class where their car fits.

Under the 2012 rules the car was going to need a new chassis, or at least major chassis mods and to replace the side panels and shock mount with aluminum or tubes. Under the 2013 rules the Radon only needs to replace the carbon with an aluminum bracket.

Nathan's claim in his rules clarification request from 2010 was that he had a completed design for making the side panels from aluminum and had even gone so far as to get quotes on having the parts made ($1,720 per panel). Do we really want to rewrite the rule book to allow in cars that were never compliant over such a relatively small amount? Jim has claimed in this thread (post #70) that it would require extensive mods, but there have been a lot of false claims lately and it has become quite hard to discern truth from fiction.



Correct. I received confirmation this morning that the new spec line for the Radon requires them to be compliant with the 2012 GCR.

[a. pettipas]

edit : the only way to change the hoop is to completely redo the car as you cant scab bars on and they arent bolt on like a CD. I am not sure but I *think* Radons version of the broomstick test is that the forward roll hoop isnt where everyone thinks it is. Its much further forward which gives a shallower angle on the inspection stick and thats how the car passes even though it looks like it fails. I've spent time looking at Bob Wrights car but was looking at other stuff and never looked into that.

In my car I don't want to be just a little under the min. allowable between helmet and stick, I want to be way under that if possible, and I am...good for me I guess. I feel strongly that lower than min is a better, safer seating position for a number of reasons. The Radon seems to have most everything else in order safety-wise, fall-apart problems notwithstanding (sorry, couldn't resist) and I have been informed today by an owner that the later chassis have taller hoops. I don't want to come across as a busy body or some do-good crusader with this, and I have 0 axes to grind with any Radon owners, nevertheless this is an aspect of safety I feel strongly about and, like I said, I just want all of my peers to be as safe as possible and to keep racing.

[Wren]

I wasn't really crazy about throwing names out there, but yes they are some of the people that I spoke with. I completely agree with you about both of them being stand up guys. I believe they were an excellent choice to review the car as they are both very knowledgeable about car construction and formula cars but they both have enough separation from FC to remain objective. I also do not believe that they would lie for the SCCA.
Given the confusion, the best way to prevent this from devolving into the two of us arguing about what other people said is to pick up the phone and call them. I think that you could eliminate any confusion quickly. Just log into the SCCA webpage and find their contact info under resources>>>directory.

I don't think this discussion of other people's opinions is particularly productive. If there is a CRB member out there who thinks that the Radon is legal, it still amounts to just being one person's opinion. Should a Radon ever be protested at a club event, I doubt that you are going to base your compliance argument on what was said in the Sebring paddock by a CRB member.

What was your understanding of what was to take place in Sebring? Were you told that the final decision regarding legality would be made there? Honest question as I have no idea what you were told or what your impression was of what the end product of the Sebring inspection would be.

edit : the only way to change the hoop is to completely redo the car as you cant scab bars on and they arent bolt on like a CD. I am not sure but I *think* Radons version of the broomstick test is that the forward roll hoop isnt where everyone thinks it is. Its much further forward which gives a shallower angle on the inspection stick and thats how the car passes even though it looks like it fails. I've spent time looking at Bob Wrights car but was looking at other stuff and never looked into that.

Based on the drawings that Nathan put up the roll hoop is further forward, about at the driver's knees. In some of the pictures that have been posted the dash roll hoop would have to be several feet in front of the car to pass the broomstick test. But, that is just a snapshot in time and could be misleading. Radon guys have said that newer cars would be built with taller hoops so that indicates to me that there was some sort of issue.

It has been my understanding that the driver's head can go further back when not on track and the driver's head position is a function of needing to see over the bodywork. I certainly haven't sat in one.

On the plus side, non-ferrous scrap isn't as far in the toilet as ferrous is.

I'm paying less for aluminum now than I was in 2010. Most recent purchase was at $2.40/lb, up from $2.20/lb a few weeks ago. Maybe the prices on those parts will have come down?

[jimh3063]

Wren:
I will call both of them. Again what was said was said with more than just me there. As far as Sebring goes, I was told two people were going to look at my car and Bob Wrights and report back to the CRB what they found. That isn't what we disagree on. We are disagreeing on what was said by the two of them to me and others. As I mentioned, I will call both of them. I also will ask that Bob Wright post what he was told as well.

Again, I am on vacation an am done with this after I call them both.
I look forward to seeing you in the paddock. It's a lot easier to have this conversation in person.


Jimmy

[jimh3063]

Wren:
"It has been my understanding that the driver's head can go further back when not on track and the driver's head position is a function of needing to see over the bodywork. I certainly haven't sat in one."

I know you have never sat in one. Have you ever seen one in person, if so where?
If so how close. I'm almost sure would not ever be allowed in the GTP paddock. They would have to take your picture off the dart board. I still think they have the ashes from the last time we burned our Wren voodoo doll in effigy.

I will tell you as someone who has sat in one a bunch of times, the head can go further back. The issue is the placement of the dash in my case. I am going to go back to a dash that I can mounted to the wind deflector so I can lay back even more. I currently have an Aim Steering Wheel dash. I have to put pads behind my head to prop it up enough to read the gauges. The broomstick issue for me would be gone. I know as of Phil P's car, the hoops are taller. I can only speak to the two cars I have personal knowledge of. I'll let the rest speak for themselves.

[S Lathrop]

Wren:

I will tell you as someone who has sat in one a bunch of times, the head can go further back. The issue is the placement of the dash in my case. I am going to go back to a dash that I can mounted to the wind deflector so I can lay back even more. I currently have an Aim Steering Wheel dash. I have to put pads behind my head to prop it up enough to read the gauges. The broomstick issue for me would be gone. I know as of Phil P's car, the hoops are taller. I can only speak to the two cars I have personal knowledge of. I'll let the rest speak for themselves.

Jimmy:

I have been on my head in a Citation Zink Z16, where the roll bar cleared my head without question. I still have the helmet with the track marks on the top. That was the first roll. The second roll was over a guard rail where the impact left marks on the body work and the roll bar. I remember thinking as the car rolled that the car I was in was the only one I built with a roll bar that was not 34 inches above the bottom of the chassis. It was 32 inches. Now all my cars are 36" tall. Your car ain't even close.

Experience has given me a reasonable eye for safety. I have one driver who has been on his head 3 times in the same car over 18 years. And another driver who had a particularly nasty rolling experience at Mid-Ohio last year. Need I say more?

And yes, I consider that the roll bar being as high as it is costs my cars some significant drag compared to a car like the Radon.

[Wren]

I saw them at the 2012 Atlanta F2000 race. Close enough to appreciate the craftsmanship in the car.

Yes, from what I hear I would not be the first one to be banned from their canopy. That's a shame as I am really super lovable. I'll get by. I'm sure you would be welcome under a canopy where I was working.

[Tom Valet]

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.

Under the 2013 GCR they only have to replace the carbon with aluminum.

So why not make the changes and rehomologate them as 2013 cars?

[rperry]

A material, obviously, can either be ferrous, or non-ferrous. It looks like some people believe carbon fiber is a ferrous material? lol

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

It looks like a few hypothetical features were ruled against, making it as inconclusive with respect to radon legality as the last attempt you made.

As much as you'd like to make extensions, projections, or halucinations about what is actually written, the actual fastrack you've posted makes no ruling regarding the radon chassis whatsoever.

[Wren]

A material, obviously, can either be ferrous, or non-ferrous. It looks like some people believe carbon fiber is a ferrous material? lol

Certainly a material may be either ferrous or non-ferrous. Are you saying that the only options for a material are that it must be either ferrous or non-ferrous? That is incorrect. Those two options are hardly an exhaustive list of options for what a material. It is the engineering industry standard to only apply those terms to metal alloys. It is also the position of the COA under the 2012 GCR.


Nathan was correct in 2010 to appeal to the authority of industry groups like ASME. He was incorrect in his assumptions about what those groups actually have to say. ASME was directly contacted and they verified that it was not standard to consider carbon fiber a "non-ferrous" material.


I am especially glad that the SCCA chose to go to an outside group in making this ruling. Unless someone cares to posit a theory on a conspiracy involving Citation, the SCCA, ASME, and ASTM, then we can put to bed any claims of conspiracy.

It is also important to note that even though "non-ferrous" is a term for metal alloys, the ruling for non-compliance of a carbon fiber bracket hinges on the argument that the FC specific prohibition on carbon fiber prevails. The rules on how to read and interpret the GCR are a very fundamental part of this process.
So we have a group that is independent of the SCCA and both sides of the argument believe them to be an appropriate authority on the matter. Is there some sort of issue with this?

It looks like a few hypothetical features were ruled against, making it as inconclusive with respect to radon legality as the last attempt you made.

As much as you'd like to make extensions, projections, or halucinations about what is actually written, the actual fastrack you've posted makes no ruling regarding the radon chassis whatsoever.

Quite right. The ruling is not specific to the Radon. It is a generic FF/FC construction question under the 2012 GCR.

In post #128 of this thread I showed the question that I asked of the Stewards and the COA. That was a direct copy and paste from my compliance review request. If you believe that such a generic question does not apply to all chassis, could you clarify?

In other news, we now have an answer to the question of whether or not the aero package on the Radon was legal.

[rperry]

Of course ferrous or non-ferrous is not the only way to describe it, but ALL materials must fall into ONE of those two categories. It is a black/white, yes/no switch, and the two are mutually exclusive of each other.

Either a material is ferrous, or it is non ferrous. I have never heard of any carbon fibers which are constructed from iron, thus it follows from the most basic of logic that Carbon fiber is clearly non-ferrous. I think for any English speaker this is as clear as it can be described, so I won't be elaborating any further.

Quite right. The ruling is not specific to the Radon. It is a generic FF/FC construction question under the 2012 GCR.

Great, we agree then.

[tstarke4]

Please explain the difference between "non-ferrous" and "not ferrous". I know you posted that you would not elaborate further, but please indulge me.

[tstarke4]

Oh, one more question: Where do clear objects fit in the "black or white" classification system of yours?

[Wren]

Of course ferrous or non-ferrous is not the only way to describe it, but ALL materials must fall into ONE of those two categories. It is a black/white, yes/no switch, and the two are mutually exclusive of each other.

Either a material is ferrous, or it is non ferrous. I have never heard of any carbon fibers which are constructed from iron, thus it follows from the most basic of logic that Carbon fiber is clearly non-ferrous. I think for any English speaker this is as clear as it can be described, so I won't be elaborating any further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

There are more obviously more options than ferrous or non-ferrous to describe a material, at least according to industry standards. Anything else would require making up your own definition of non-ferrous.

The use of carbon fiber as a bracket for FC is still banned by 9.1.1.B.1. Specific class rules are the top of the hierarchy as far as rules interpretations. It seems that people are all too quick to overlook GCR 1.2.3.C.

If I were making the same argument for FF, then I would have only the ferrous/non-ferrous argument to work from, which conveniently is the official rules interpretation of the SCCA also. But FC makes the use of a carbon fiber bracket in the chassis/frame non-compliant on two fronts, while it is only non-compliant on one front for FF.

While I chose not to send in a letter regarding the 2013 rules change, weird things like this certainly make a solid argument for bringing them together.

Great, we agree then.

Somehow I doubt that. My belief is that a ruling regarding the broader topic of 2012 FF/FC construction applies to all cars competing under the 2012 FF/FC rules. Do we agree on this?

[Steve Bamford]

Wren,

You must have been on the debate team earlier in life...if not you missed your calling as you sure can continue a discussion going with a point of view.

[Wren]

I do think that the conversation has the possibility to be meaningful again. We now know what the official SCCA rules interpretation of specific rules is.

In the past I have taken some criticism for using phrases like "I think" or "my opinion," but until now everything here has been just someone's opinion. Everyone is certainly still entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. We actually have some facts to work from now.

[Daryl DeArman]

More accurately it wouldn't be a black/white choice, rather a black/not black.

I can follow the logic on both sides of this argument and with that enters that dreaded intent as to what non ferrous meant to those who drafted the rule...

ALL materials known to man are either ferrous or they aren't. Everything "non-ferrous" is "not ferrous" but everything "not ferrous" isn't "non-ferrous" at it applies to metalurgy standard terminology.

[Daryl DeArman]

Everyone is certainly still entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. We actually have some facts to work from now.

Uh, no we don't. What the CoA rules is still opinion, it's just theirs has a little more weight.

[Wren]

Uh, no we don't. What the CoA rules is still opinion, it's just theirs has a little more weight.

The Big Lebowski? "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion man."

We do have some facts. "Non-ferrous" in the 2012 GCR means a metal alloy with less than 50% iron. There is no ambiguity. The ruling from the COA establishes the facts.

Everything "non-ferrous" is "not ferrous" but everything "not ferrous" isn't "non-ferrous" at it applies to metalurgy standard terminology.

I think this is well said. Obviously everything either consists of 50% iron or it doesn't. That does not mean that the word "non-ferrous" means everything on the planet not consisting of at least 50% iron.

[Jnovak]

Uh, no we don't. What the CoA rules is still opinion, it's just theirs has a little more weight.

Sorry Daryl but the CoA is the final word within the SCCA.

I suggest that you read all the items relating to the Court of Appeals within the GCR. There are many more but this one is probably the most relevant to your comment.

8.4.5. Judgment of the Court of Appeals
F. The Court’s decision is final, binding and not subject to further appeals by any party, either inside or outside the SCCA.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[starkejt]

Is air non-ferrous?

[Steve Bamford]

Is air non-ferrous?

Not according to the 2012 GCR...or maybe it is, should we inquire to the CoA?

[starkejt]

In what percentage of his roles is Matthew Broderick non-Ferris?

[Steve Bamford]

In what percentage of his roles is Matthew Broderick non-Ferris?

All but one! Wren can probably come up with an arguement for that though so I can't be 100% sure