Latest preliminary tech bulletin

[DaveW]

Looks like the Radon legality has been clarified.

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...ewpost&t=57628

Quote - FF/FC rules:

1. #11095 (SCCA Staff) Clarify the Radon Spec line.
Effective immediately, in the FF/FC Alternate Vehicle Allowance table, clarify the Radon FN?10?2000 (2011) notes by adding the following language:
“Cars may be raced either as delivered, under the 2012 rules
or as modified to comply with the current rules.No combination of the 2012 and current rules is allowed.”

[reidhazelton]

Did they bother to define "as delivered"? As delivered paint color...spring rates...pine tree air freshener?

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...5%20prelim.pdf

[Northwind]

Can be found in the Radon spec line table. No other colors are permitted.

[stonebridge20]

I bet 15 pages

[Wren]

I bet 15 pages

I doubt it. Even the Radon guys weren't arguing that their car was legal per the 2012 rules for the last few days of the last thread. The argument devolved to "the rules are stupid."


I'm think this is just as clear as the last rule. Their spec line is dependent on being compliant to the 2012 GCR and they are unquestionably illegal per the 2012 GCR.

The good news is that the GCR keeps changing to make it easier for them to be compliant with the 2013 rules.

The bad news is that I took Jim's advice, got some more up-to-date photos, and I can see more things that are illegal about the car. The Radon is missing basic safety pieces of the frame.

[HazelNut]

I can't believe people are still arguing about this, like it actually matters.

can't we just drop it? there are what 4 of these cars and they aren't exactly turning the world upside down. They are going decent but "killing FC" or "changing the game" they are not. Let them run and keep the peace in FC. The constant arguing make us looks like a bunch of disorganized morons chasing a moving target that we keep moving on ourselves.

after this whole mess I'd wouldn't be at all surprised if it's a while before anyone is willing to even build a new "non controversial" "entirely traditional" car from a clean sheet.



Oh, and if I hear "son of radon", whoever says it is getting sissy-slapped.

[racerdad2]

I'd like info on the Radon's side impact protection panels. What are they made of ? Are they available in custom sizes ? Legality is NOT my question... Thx !

[jimh3063]

The panels are made for the car specifically. They were also deemed legal by a COA ruling which I have in my possession. When Wren protests me I will be happy to provide them.

As far as the as shipped clause. No two cars are the same.

Jimmy

[Jnovak]

The panels are made for the car specifically. They were also deemed legal by a COA ruling which I have in my possession. When Wren protests me I will be happy to provide them.

As far as the as shipped clause. No two cars are the same.

Jimmy

Looks like you are good to go Jim. Go for it.

[Wren]

Did this really need to come back to the top? Was the last thread not painful enough for everyone?

Jim, you claim to have something that no one else has ever seen. There are several problems with that.

1. Is it from 2012 or 2013? If not, it doesn't really apply here. The COA would consider it in any future rulings on this subject. But, they considered it in the my ruling. Good luck.
2. The ruling from the COA is only good as long as every single thing that the panels do is laid out in the request for a ruling. Unless that ruling is in direct contradiction to the things that the Radon guys have been claiming for years, it doesn't cover all of those things.
3. My arguments and the COA response has been laid out for everyone to see. You have refused to show anything or answer the questions. Nathan has clearly pulled out of the conversation and is relying on claims that the SCCA has moved the goalposts on him because he has emails from a COA member from when he was building the car.

By his own admission, the emails from that COA member were just another person's opinion. The story has only changed recently.

http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...0&postcount=15

but he also had to explain to me that his opinion is just that, even as an official of the SCCA.

4.Ignoring the panels, unless your car all of the sudden has:

- a floor that has less than 1" of curvature from the rear roll hoop to the front bulkhead
- a diffuser that is legal per the 2012 rules
- forward facing braces that protect the driver's legs (Maybe your car has these, the most recent pictures I found of the Teeter car does not. BTW- Nathan was warned about this by the COA as well and it appears to be just another thing that he chose to ignore. I hope that he added them to some cars as this is still required by the F2KCS and an important safety item.).

then your car is still not legal to be run as an FC in the SCCA.

There is a reason that the F2KCS had to break away from running SCCA GCR legal cars and create a new set of rules for their series: Your car is not legal for the SCCA and was never legal for the SCCA. It is not compliant to any set of FC rules that has ever existed.

If you noticed in the last technical bulletin, they updated the rules clarification section of the GCR. I don't need to even go to an event to protest your car anymore. I just need to send in my $300.

There is really, really no point to arguing this anymore. What happened to the Radon purchasers is incredibly unfortunate. Your options are to run the F2KCS or to have your car modified to be made legal. Whether you want to accept it or not, there have been multiple rules changes recently that make this easier.

Jay Novak made an offer a while ago that if someone would get a Radon to his shop then he would figure out how to make one legal. Jay is one of more accomplished car builders in the SCCA and would be the perfect person to work this out. Right now the Radon needs some tubes and brackets added to the frame and an extension on the undertray. If someone is serious about running their Radon in the SCCA then they should have already had their car at Jay's shop.

I suppose that your other option would be to send everything that you have, along with some pictures of your car to the COA along with $300. If you really believe that your car is legal, I think that $300 would be a cheap investment after the $100k plus that you have already spent.

[rperry]

Wren, you need to quit trolling and find a more productive use of your time, besides making long winded, irrelevant posts about the Radon ANY time the word comes up on the forum.

Jim says he has a COA ruling. Either you can accept that, throw a tantrum and call him a liar, or protest. There is no reason for a lengthy post about features of a car you're not familiar with.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up unrelated parts on the car beside the panels other than to recycle your same tired arguments - they have nothing to do with Racerdad's question or Jim's response.

Your posts regarding the radon are just SPAM.

[Jnovak]

Sure, I would like to fix the Radon so that they are legal for current rules. However, the point of the matter is that the SCCA has decided to let the 7 existing Radons race in the spec that the were delivered in, no matter what that spec was. It simply does not matter what anyone else thinks about the legality of the cars.

Time to move on.

[Wren]

Jay, I agree that it is time to move on, but it the Radon guys want to move on inside the SCCA then they are going to have to be modified for compliance. Fastrack is not allowing the Radon's to run regardless of the rules, they are just offering them the choice of competing under the 2012 or 2013 rules. As they are compliant with neither, they will need modifications to compete in the SCCA.

[reidhazelton]

Wren, you need to quit trolling and find a more productive use of your time, besides making long winded, irrelevant posts about the Radon ANY time the word comes up on the forum.

Your posts regarding the radon are just SPAM.

He was mentioned specifically, by name, in the post that had nothing to do about Radon legality. And Wren was trolling?


Will someone just protest one of these so we can get this over with already? It seems somehow a FC/FF thread always comes back to this subject.

Can't we go back to fighting about Kent v. Fit, F500/F600, who is cheating in FM, FE gearboxes, who was caught kissing Sally Jenkins behind the bleachers, DSR/CSR being combined, FB SIR's, Runoffs formats, and weather or not the sky is blue?

What is done is done, can we just leave it at that? Each side has their opinions and until a Radon is protested this is all just that, opinion.

[jimh3063]

Reid:
Well said.

Jimmy

[Matt M.]

Does anyone have an umbrella I can borrow? I think It's about to rain.......HEAVY

[Dennis Valet]

Does anyone have an umbrella I can borrow? I think It's about to rain.......HEAVY

[racerdad2]

Is really like to have similar side panels on my Reynard.... And Bernie's daughter

[Wren]

Is really like to have similar side panels on my Reynard.... And Bernie's daughter

If you want good, legal composite work then you should contact Mike Devins. He is good at what he does and based on the work I have seen from him, he can find the link to the GCR on the internet.

Adding Kevlar is an excellent choice.

Does anyone have an umbrella I can borrow? I think It's about to rain.......HEAVY

Let's hope.

[stonebridge20]

Does anyone have an umbrella I can borrow? I think It's about to rain.......HEAVY

Hey,...you get that thing below the lap record before the rain came?

[Dennis Valet]

Ok I've waited long enough. What's wrong with you people, how has this not been posted yet? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.


http://assets.bizjournals.com/kansas...StueveSCCA.pdf


Let's roll

[alangbaker]

Ok I've waited long enough. What's wrong with you people, how has this not been posted yet? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.


http://assets.bizjournals.com/kansas...StueveSCCA.pdf


Let's roll

Good.

Perhaps once they're ruled against by a judge and/or jury in a court of law, Radon will finally shut up.

[Wren]

Good.

For some fun reading, here is another time that someone tried to sue the SCCA over rules. It's funny and definitely worth a read.

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov...7.94-3251.html

My guess is that someone is about to get a lesson in judicial non-interference and a ban from membership in the SCCA.

The single most surprising part of this is that Nathan actually thinks there is a conspiracy.

[Daryl DeArman]

It will be interesting to see how that all shakes out.

[jimh3063]

Folks:
I have no desire to post anything more on this subject other than this.
I have the Fran am lawsuit doc. It's publically available. Use the Google. It makes good reading. Wren, you should read it. There are two sides to people suing the SCCA. Fran Am is the other side of what Wren just posted.

As far as a conspiracy goes, let's just let the legal system take it's course. If Nathan has no proof, then that will come out. If Nathan meets the burden of proof, then that will come out too.

All this crap makes for fun banter in the off season. It's racing season. Let's race. This whole thing is about to work itself out. Let's sit back and watch the show. Instead of throwing darts at each other, let's go in circles (lefts and rights, this isn't Nascar), burn some fuel, drink a few beers, and enjoy the short life we've all been given.

The events that occurred in my home town last week have put a lot of things in perspective for me. If it weren't for that, I'd probably throwing some mud back.

Jimmy

[Dennis Valet]

A federal lawsuit seemed to workout for Fran-Am when they sued the SCCA, so while you can't ignore the particular facts specific to the Radon matter and you can't predict what will happen, there certainly is some precedent to this lawsuit.

[witsend]

Oh crap, does this mean our dues will go up to pay for Jimmy's car?
Let's see how it shakes out.

[jimh3063]

I'm not suing anyone. Not sure why it would be paying for my car.
I would be ok with it paying for my beer!!

Again, this whole thing is about to come to some type of conclusion. Let's let's nature take it's course and focus on having some fun racing. I think it's why we are all on this BBS.

Jimmy

[rperry]

For some fun reading, here is another time that someone tried to sue the SCCA over rules. It's funny and definitely worth a read.

My guess is that someone is about to get a lesson in judicial non-interference and a ban from membership in the SCCA.

I'm not surprised you cherry picked an irrelevant example, and ignored one that is actually analogous and sets a precedence for Radon's case. A constructor successfully sued the SCCA with a complaint very similar to Radon's.

It is hard to read the chronology starting in paragraph 31, and conclude that everyone involved was just writing the rules without the radon in mind and "just happened" to attempt to write them three times in a way that specifically banned it at precisely yet "coincidentally" he time the car was introduced.

Nonetheless, to those of us who weren't involved in the process, we'll have to let the courts show us what is fact and what isn't.

[jwr914]

How is paying for your beer less expensive?



James -R

[witsend]

Sorry Jim, meant to be a joke.

[racerdad2]

And now, for something totally irrelevant.... I'm getting six inches of snow tonight. The grass has already disappeared under a blanket of snow... Sooo, can I sue the National Weather Service for keeping me off our local track ? I was out there yesterday & the asphalt was poking thru... Now, its all white, again... The winter that will not end...

[jimh3063]

I hope my beer tab isn't as much as a Lawyers tab. I like to drink but not that much of a drunk. Throw in a couple of evenings at a Gentlemen's club and a multitude of lap dances and maybe it could come close.

Jimmy

[jimh3063]

Not to get more side tracked but Racerdad2, the track in NH has has snow on it this late as well. Evil winter is never going to end.

Jimmy

[Wren]

It is hard to read the chronology starting in paragraph 31, and conclude that everyone involved was just writing the rules without the radon in mind and "just happened" to attempt to write them three times in a way that specifically banned it at precisely yet "coincidentally" he time the car was introduced.

I read the chronology. It's crap.

For a long, long time I have been asking for the specifics of the conspiracy. This is just a re-statement of the same lies.

It is also important to remember that the Radon was not legal under the old rules.

[jimh3063]

Wow for a second I thought I had this thread steered towards boobies and beer.
Back to this crap. Bummer.

Let the process take it's course. What will come out will end it once and for all one way or another.

Jimmy

[KevinFirlein]

since I was diposed for the Fran am debacle I happen to have intimate knowledge of the matter. The Fran Am car didnt meet SCCA specs nor did it have a place to race with in any class as built. The roll bar was however easily changed and Bob Gelles payed to have his roll bar converted and asked for the car to be included in FA ( even though it in now way met FA specs ) he was still told no, correctly. The * MASSIVE * problem came from the fact that at the same time all this was going on a memeber of the BoD had approached the makers of the Formula Renault cars directly and tried to get them to give the US contrasct for the cars to SCCA Enterprises, instead of the Fran Am people, so the cars could be run as spec formula cars inside of SCCA racing. Whooops !!!!!! Lawsuit lost. If not for the complete idiot on the BoD there is no lawsuit as its not SCCA job to either give someone a place to race or to promise everyone their car will always be legal to run as is. See Shelby Can Am or anyone with a RT5, ones class went bye bye period and the other lost their class to the FF2000 cars.

[Wren]

What will come out will end it once and for all one way or another.

I genuinely doubt that.

My google fu is usually strong, but I cannot find the fran-am decision. I can find the lawsuit, but that is pretty meaningless.

Kevin, that is in line with what I have heard. You obviously have better knowledge than pretty much anyone here.

The lawsuit I posted was someone trying to use courts to get around SCCA rules. Nathan has asked for the same. That is the comparison.

Can someone post a link to the fran-am decision and can someone explain how that would apply to this case?

[jimh3063]

Kevin:
Any chance of sharing who the person you were referring to in the statement
"If not for the complete idiot on the BoD there is no lawsuit"?

Jimmy

[KevinFirlein]

Jim it was a woman but at this point I have forgotten her name.

It should also be pointed out that after the cash settlement the car was still not given a place to rasce as part of the settlement. That didnt come until years later when it was added to FA. Never have seen one run.