Nice.Originally Posted by starkejt
Nice.
"I love the smell of race fuel in the morning. It smells like victory!"
Barry Wilcock
Pit Crew: Tumenas Motorsports/Houndspeed, Fat Boy Racing
I've got nothing. Josh needs to stand up, spike his computer, and walk away. He wins the internet for today.All but one! Wren can probably come up with an arguement for that though so I can't be 100% sure
I'm sure one of the Radoners will pop up to ask if I've ever even seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off or to say they heard differently from John Hughes.
Your clarification does not change anything and has no influence over the Radon, in the same way that my neighbor permitting a bathroom remodel has no bearing on my ability to make unrelated changes to mine.
-Robert
Ferris mowers, arguably the finest made, have ferrous, non-ferrous and not ferrous components. They are not available in black or white.
I guess we are back to being serious.
The march fastrack ruling from the COA regards a general construction question that is not car specific. According to the Radon principals, non-ferrous must include everything that is not at least 50% iron for their car to be legal. As carbon fiber bracketry is banned from two fronts for FC, I think things are clear.
Good luck convincing the stewards that such a straightforward question and answer regarding FC construction does not apply to a car competing in FC.
I don't follow your bathroom analogy at all, it seems to be non-sequitor.
To be fair, they don't have bathrooms in Alabama. I imagine that's where the communication breakdown is occurring.
I am sorry but Broderick was never Ferris , everyone knows 'Ferris' was jusr Cameron's Tyler Durden so therfore not really a person at all
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Runoffs 1 Gold 3 Silver 3 bronze, 8 Divisional , 6 Regional Champs , 3x Drivers of the year awards
See my post from 1/31/2012 on this subject in the Atlantic Championship thread.
Lol, Josh I have to agree with someone else here, please refer to post # 162 in this thread.
Steve Bamford
damn did I double up ?
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
for stealing my thunder Josh I hope Schweitz shows up with a Radon that he wants to run for this season. Only problem is I think Popps Starke would protest his own driver, as long as that driver was Schweitz.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Actually, we are working a new car in secret called the Methanethiol MeSH.13.
If you are peeing inside you are doing it wrong.To be fair, they don't have bathrooms in Alabama. I imagine that's where the communication breakdown is occurring.
And it's Schweitz, so everyone really has no option but to just shake their and go with it. I fully support this idea. Josh, make it happen.
I consider keeping Schwietz in a race car a form of public service. The way I look at it, if he is in my car, he's not in yours. Your welcome. Glad to help.
No. I'm sorry, but the English language allows for words to have meanings beyond what a purely literal interpretation of the components would imply. "Non-ferrous" is such a word and in the context of engineering is used exclusively to mean metals.
If you believe otherwise, please find a usage where it is used to refer to any material that is not a metal.
Brush up on venn diagrams and then re-read my post.
Venn diagrams are relevant to a particular branch of mathematics.
The English language is NOT mathematics.
The definition of "nonferrous" is not "anything not containing iron".
Jay, I am familiar with their powers. My point that I was poking at Wren about is even when the CoA makes a ruling it is still their opinion (not fact) just one that carries more weight than anyone elses'.
The CoA could rule that this color is white and for the purposes of the GCR it would be...that doesn't make it a fact.
Who said it was? Did you re-read my post?
Compound words (and terms) can have definitions and usage that are not simply equivalent to the definitions and usage of the constituent words. Context is very important when determining the meaning of a word. If you try to define "spearmint" using a Venn diagram, I don't think you will find its meaning in the intersection of spears and mints.
What were you trying to say that you feel I've misread?
@alangbaker
Every single item that is "non-ferrous" is also not ferrous.
Every single item that is not ferrous is not neccessarily "non-ferrous" (per the acceptable metalurgical meaning) such as the chicken I am currently eating.
Thanks, I see where I went wrong there.
Sorry.
No worries.
Yes, most languages do. But I can't think of many "interpretations" of technical terms that fly in the face of their literal meanings. Aside from the "non-ferrous" rubbish being spread in this thread. It's a pretty big distortion to classify a carbon composite which does not contain iron as "containing iron" - the only alternative.
No."Non-ferrous" is such a word and in the context of engineering is used exclusively to mean metals.
Ok. http://library.modot.mo.gov/RDT/repo...2/orb06015.pdf It probably took me less time to lazily accept goggle's auto-complete result than it did for someone to shop around for the 1 out of hundreds of thousands of engineers who agrees with them.If you believe otherwise, please find a usage where it is used to refer to any material that is not a metal.
Missouri DOT using "nonferrous" to describe carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP's) is at odds with your assertion that "non-ferrous..... is used exclusively to mean metals." So is basic logic.Use of nonferrous fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement bars (rebars) offers one promising alternative to mitigating the corrosion problem in steel reinforced concrete bridge decks
Any materials which do not contain iron are by definition nonferrous. The fact that people casually apply this word to metals in light of the obvious nonferrous nature of other materials (like carbon fiber, or chicken) does not magically add iron to all things non-metallic. Though I can certainly see why some people wish it did.
-Robert
Wow.
MoDot
Other than the fact that this is the same MoDot that will not let me license my homebuilt trackday car for street use, I find it amazing that an ApexSpeed poster from Stuttgart would ever reference Missouri dogma.
If carbon works, use it. It's getting to be cheaper than machined aluminum or steel.
Marty
This is actually getting to be funny.
Getting to be?
59 years on the planet, 40 years in the metals industry, and today for the first time I hear the term non-ferrous used outside the context of metallurgy.
See, this is the problem when people that have "intent" in a rule writing process don't say that they actually mean.
As a non-engineer and non-metallurgist, non-ferrous to me would only mean and always mean not made out of an iron-based metal. Plastic, carbon, glass, etc are all fare game.
The simple rule writing saying non-ferrous metal would be so much clearer to those who weren't there at the magic rule writing event that occurred shortly after my birth. I wish I had been there, but I wasn't sure there would be an able supply of warm milk.
That's it, tomorrow I going out to the shop to start building new brackets out of wattle and daub. They will work nicely with my blipper system!
Yay! I learned two new words today
My brain is now non-....... BTW... Never live where you can't pee in your own backyard... One of my car club members has a urinal mounted on the side of an oak tree. He's a Ford fan, so there's a Chevy Bowtie emblem inside it
"An analog man living in a digital world"
I'm glad you guys understand that you are pretty much on the same page.
I do think that you and I have different definitions of what constitutes a fact though. The SCCA definition of non-ferrous under the 2012 GCR is fact.
Again, you present only two alternatives while trying to parse words and redefine things. Does it carbon fiber contain iron? No. Does it meet the industry standard definition for "non-ferrous?" No. Words have meanings.
In the direct communications of the SCCA with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, an organization that has previously been held up by the chief designer at Radon as an organization who should be an authority on this exact subject, the SCCA was told that these are considered non-metallic materials.
Also of note is the fact that the SCCA also ruled the carbon fiber chassis brackets non-compliant based on the prohibition against carbon fiber in the FC rules. Even if I were to concede that carbon fiber could appropriately be considered non-ferrous (I don't), the carbon fiber chassis brackets would still be non-compliant.
The SCCA definition of non-ferrous under the 2012 GCR is set in stone now. What you think and what I think are no longer relevant. We are left with no real option but to accept it.
At best this is argument ad populum. I will take direct communication with ASME over the hundreds of thousands of engineers you assume agree with you.It probably took me less time to lazily accept goggle's auto-complete result than it did for someone to shop around for the 1 out of hundreds of thousands of engineers who agrees with them.
I don't see at all. Care to clarify?Though I can certainly see why some people wish it did.
More cognitive dissonance.
I posted this Wednesday when I gave the information regarding the SCCA official definition of non-ferrous.
I should be a prophet. It took two days, but someone finally found something. It is from the Missouri department of transportation about corrosion resistant bridges.
Rules are important. If the class wants to go that direction, then the members have a process to make that legal. Until then, the use of carbon in FC frames or as an FC frame component is not legal.
I think that you have something of a point. I can understand the basic misunderstanding that rperry has made with a much too literal interpretation of the word nonferrous. The SCCA seems to be taking steps to correct that.
But, if you were a non-technical person trying to determine what is legal or trying to evaluate legality of the use of carbon fiber in an FC chassis, there are a lot of very reasonable options available to you. It is the matter of only a few minutes to take the steps that the SCCA took and email or call an organization like ASME or ASM and talk to them about it and learn about the industry standard definition. A few minutes of google use will also show how the term is used. Given the amount of work that goes into building a new car, there are several straightforward methods of determining this.
But, understanding the phrase non-ferrous is not essential to understanding that carbon fiber is not allowed in the construction of FC chassis. Here is a direct quote from section 9.1.1.B.1 of the 2012 GCR:
This is the section regarding chassis/frame construction for FC and I believe it to be quite clear and should generate no controversy.
This is actually getting pretty boring. Way to much focus on the word "ferrous" and not enough focus on the prohibition of carbon fiber. The below is from the 2012 GCR:
B.1. Chassis
The chassis shall be of tubular steel construction with no stress?bearing panels except bulkhead and undertray; curvature of the undertray shall not exceed 2.54cm (1 inch). Monocoque chassis construction is prohibited.
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). Body panels cannot be utilized as stress bearing panels, except as required for 1986 construction rules. The use of composite materials using carbon and/or Kevlar reinforcement is prohibited.
(my bolding)
What's the problem? Stop argueing semantics, fix what will be a fine race car and go racing.
Jay Novak
Are pedants considered non-ferrous or not ferrous?
aaron
Well, pedant comes from the Greek "ped," meaning child, and "ant," meaning a small social insect. Ergo, logic dictates that a pedant is a form of juvenile insect belonging to the Formicidae family. We all know ants are exceedingly strong, but I doubt you will find one composed of more than 50% iron, so one must conclude that pedants are both non-ferrous and not ferrous. I would elaborate further, but I'm sure you'd agree that to do so would be rather didactic. Quod erat demonstrandum.
To be clear, I am actually fully in agreement that carbon is not to be used here and that I am not being difficult. Rather, I find fault with the SCCA process and their writing style that seems particularly messy in the FF/FC rules. It is far messier than the other class rules with too many references and reliances on "clarifications" that have occurred in the past but never become written in the rules.
When something like this is clarified by the SCCA, the rule book should be clarified. If it were not for the internet record this thread creates, those that were not part of the original discussion would never know that this interpretation of put into stone on the mountain high.
I have run into this before in another class where something I built was legal by my reading of the rules, but others felt it was not based on a protest held ten years prior to me ever being in the SCCA. Nothing was ever put into the rule book or was published regarding the finding so others could know about it that were not there.
Perhaps an online rule book addendum? A publication of all compliance rulings over time as a a point of clarification or reference?
What if someone creates carboferrous like the new carbotanium that is being used in cars but with iron instead of titanium? At 50.5% iron would it be ferrous? Not that someone would create such a useless thing, but as a point of consideration to belabor this thread?
I am just getting some engineering thought training because it is definitely different than the thought process that goes into my day.
Thanks for the education!
jim
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
