Latest preliminary tech bulletin

[jimh3063]

It's always those woman starting ****. figures. Do you remember if she was a fan of cigars and first name was Monica?

Jimmy

[Daryl DeArman]

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

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

Same here, no luck. Did the terms of the award/settlement dictate that the records be sealed? Certainly, SCCA financial statements should give some insight. Perhaps an old' Fasttrack somebody has laying around?

As to how that decision would apply in this case; the lawyers will have to argue that one.

Take for example all the classes that allow for competition adjustments. You build something to race in that class; you should certainly be aware that the rules could be adjusted to your detriment at any time. Now, if people with a vested financial interest in the outcome of such adjustment are the ones making said adjustments that's a huge problem.

How does an organization identify and retain volunteers qualified to make such decisions based on their knowledge of the class without those people also having the appearance of a conflict of interest?

[Daryl DeArman]

From the July 2006 NorPac meeting minutes:


Yes the SCCA and Fran Am lawsuit has been settled. It is good to have this behind us. As part of that settlement, there were specific non-disclosure agreements, which preclude us from providing any further information on the subject. The SCCA and its related parties will not comment on any of the specifics, answer any questions, confirm, or deny any statements made by any other parties.

[Wren]

I guess Fran-Am is why they chose to include enterprises and claim that the FE is a direct competitor of the Radon?

Is it a case of throw enough crap at the wall and see what sticks?

Hope for a settlement?

I still find it hard to believe that anyone actually believes there is a conspiracy. No one who inspected or looked at the car thought it was legal.

[Dennis McCarthy]

As one who was also deposed by the FranAm attorneys, it's my recollection that Enterprises had a deal with the US importer to import and promote the car. After signing an agreement to that effect, SCCA tried to cut the importer out of the deal to increase their margin. When Formula Renault said no and stuck by their importer, SCCA then said the car couldn't race.

First it was ok to race then wasn't, one might draw a parallel. I believe there was a very expensive settlement with a non disclosure agreement by both sides....

[Wren]

First it was ok to race then wasn't, one might draw a parallel.

There was never an agreement that the Radon was ok to race.


The COA even tried everything in their power to bring Nathan's attention to the illegal parts of the car.

[racerdad2]

Well, gents. This has gone growed-up serious. A jury trial has been requested. No way to guess this outcome. Seriously hope for a fair & equitable settlement for all concerned. Chinese Curse... May you have to go to Court, knowing you are right...

[jimh3063]

I guess Fran-Am is why they chose to include enterprises and claim that the FE is a direct competitor of the Radon?

Is it a case of throw enough crap at the wall and see what sticks?

Hope for a settlement?

I still find it hard to believe that anyone actually believes there is a conspiracy. No one who inspected or looked at the car thought it was legal.

Wren
As I've mentioned before, that is incorrect. I'm sure the two people who looked at the car will be deposed and this can be put to bed as well. There were more than just me present when both people made statements to the contrary.

Jimmy

[jimh3063]

There was never an agreement that the Radon was ok to race.


The COA even tried everything in their power to bring Nathan's attention to the illegal parts of the car.

They disapproved of aspects of the bodywork, that is true. Mod's were made and the appeal was resubmitted. It was when they approved for the bodywork. I have the COA ruling in my possession. What other parts are you referring too?

I keep saying this to a deaf ear, let it play out in court. Let the parties involved present their evidence and see where things end up. Are you that impatient?

Jimmy

[Daryl DeArman]

There was never an agreement that the Radon was ok to race.

Prior to 2013 was one issued a log book? Entry accepted? Subsequently protested successfully?

[jimh3063]

Daryl, don't cloud the issue with facts. Wren has been at least 50 feet away from one. He knows it's illegal. How can you argue with that?

[Dennis McCarthy]

The bigger question is did SCCA issue homologation certificates?
I'm sure Jimmy can speak to that...

[jimh3063]

I do have one as does everyone else. I'm not sure what that really signifies though.
I surf for porn at night not read the GCR. Ask Wren.

[Dennis McCarthy]

SCCA asks for pictures of the car with and without bodywork in the homologation package. What Nathan built was no secret to who ever issued the certificates. If the car was not legal, why were papers issued by the sanctioning body in the first place. In other words, does SCCA now argue the homologation process is pretty useless?

[Wren]

Wren
As I've mentioned before, that is incorrect. I'm sure the two people who looked at the car will be deposed and this can be put to bed as well. There were more than just me present when both people made statements to the contrary.

Jimmy

The "CRB" Sebring inspection has been beaten to death in the last thread. You even outed who did the inspection if people want to call and confirm what I said.

But, I wasn't even thinking of them when I wrote that. Another who was supposed to inspect the car was a source for some of my protest information.

They disapproved of aspects of the bodywork, that is true. Mod's were made and the appeal was resubmitted. It was when they approved for the bodywork. I have the COA ruling in my possession. What other parts are you referring too?

I am referring to the COA ruling where they allowed the floor and where they disallowed the panels.

The COA was clearly trying to get Nathan to ask another set of questions. It appears that I was the first to actually bother to ask the questions. You would have to ask Nathan why.

Prior to 2013 was one issued a log book? Entry accepted? Subsequently protested successfully?

Yes. Yes. No.

I'm not sure how your questions are relevant to the discussion. Nathan claims that the SCCA declared the car fully compliant with SCCA rules. The SCCA has no process for that, so it is clearly untrue.

The bigger question is did SCCA issue homologation certificates?
I'm sure Jimmy can speak to that...

I do have one as does everyone else. I'm not sure what that really signifies though.
I surf for porn at night not read the GCR. Ask Wren.

AFAIK, all of the Radon's have homologation certificates. I can't imagine why they wouldn't have a homologation certificate.

Rather than ask me whether or not a homologation certificate means anything regarding legality, I think we should go off of what Nathan says:

http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...7&postcount=64

Unfortunately, homologation provides no guarantee of legality in the SCCA...

[Dennis McCarthy]

At this point Wren what any of us think is pretty moot. We could beat this to death here, but now it's up to the named parties to either reach some sort of an agreement or a judge to decide....

[jimh3063]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimh3063
They disapproved of aspects of the bodywork, that is true. Mod's were made and the appeal was resubmitted. It was when they approved for the bodywork. I have the COA ruling in my possession. What other parts are you referring too?

I am referring to the COA ruling where they allowed the floor and where they disallowed the panels.

The COA was clearly trying to get Nathan to ask another set of questions. It appears that I was the first to actually bother to ask the questions. You would have to ask Nathan why.
================================================== =======

Wren:
They approved the second iteration of the bodywork. I have the paperwork from the COA stating so. You were supposed to protest me and I was going to whip it out.
Now you've ruined the fun.

Can you show me what COA docs you'er referring to in this statement "The COA was clearly trying to get Nathan to ask another set of questions. It appears that I was the first to actually bother to ask the questions. You would have to ask "

Thanks,
Jimmy

[Daryl DeArman]

There was never an agreement that the Radon was ok to race.

Yes. Yes. No.

I'm not sure how your questions are relevant to the discussion.

Those facts are all the assurance that any of us ever receive that our car, and those we are racing against are okay to race.

[Wren]

Wren:
They approved the second iteration of the bodywork. I have the paperwork from the COA stating so. You were supposed to protest me and I was going to whip it out.
Now you've ruined the fun.

I didn't realize that there was any kind of question regarding the bodywork beyond the illegal diffuser. Can you clarify why we would even be talking about the bodywork?

The issues are with the frame.

You didn't enter any SCCA club events that I am aware of. Now, everyone has the option of protesting your car without even showing up to an event that you are entered in.

Can you show me what COA docs you'er referring to in this statement "The COA was clearly trying to get Nathan to ask another set of questions. It appears that I was the first to actually bother to ask the questions. You would have to ask "

Thanks,
Jimmy

It was the stewards ruling affirmed by the COA that had the warning. As for explaining it, I have already done that.

http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=275

[Wren]

Those facts are all the assurance that any of us ever receive that our car, and those we are racing against are okay to race.

They signify that the car has finished the homologation process which is the safety review. Those documents definitely allow the car to enter a race. Those documents do not guarantee legality. If they did we would not need the protest process.

You are incorrect that those documents are the only assurance we can receive. We can also file a compliance review to deal with the legality issues.

I have no doubt that any of the Radon cars could enter an SCCA race right now. They have the neccesary documents. What they could not do is stand up to a protest.

It is also worth noting that the Radon could absolutely enter an SCCA race legally, just not in FC. They are not excluded from participating in the SCCA.

Can you imagine the nightmare if homologation was a guarantee of legality? There are people in the SCCA who show up every weekend with a different configuration of their car. If homologation was a guarantee of legality, we would have to re-apply for homologation every weekend. That is why homologation addresses basic construction safety issues and the protest/compliance review process deals with the legality of the car.

[Jnovak]

Homologation of a car does not state or infer the legality of any car. It is up to the competitors and the stewards to determine legality.

On another note a COA ruling is ONLY VALID for the calendar year of the ruling. For instance, let's say that in 2011 you received a COA ruling that defined a SPECIFIC RULING for a specific question on your car, assuming that your item was ruled legal. After that calendar year (of the ruling) the rules can and often do change, so 2012 is a whole new ball game. Just a fact of life and the way the system works.

8.1.4. Compliance Review
A member may request a determination on the compliance of his vehicle or its components through the Club Racing Department.

A. Upon receiving a request, the Chairman of the Stewards’ Program will convene a review committee. The committee will consult with the Club Racing Board for expert technical testimony prior to determining the compliance of the item(s) in question. The review committee will convey their decision to the member, and notify the Chairman of the Stewards’ Program, who will then forward the decision to the appropriate parties.

B. The Court of Appeals will consider the request and the committee’s decision. The member may submit additional evidence to the CoA after receiving the review committee’s decision. In its review, the CoA will consult with the Club Racing board for expert technical testimony prior to determining the compliance of the item(s) in question. The CoA will render their decision to the member, and the Chairman of the Stewards’ Program.

C. Penalties or penalty points will not be assessed in the event of a negative ruling.

D. A non-compliant ruling will be published; a compliant ruling will not be published. Court of Appeals decisions on technical compliance are effective for the calendar year during which they are rendered, and are superseded by the following year’s edition of the GCR.

E. The fee for this service is $300. A portion of the fee may be refunded at the discretion of the Court of Appeals.

[Dennis McCarthy]

It will be interesting to see what a real judge considers homologation as...

Homologation is a technical term, derived from the Greek homologeo (????????) for "to agree", which is generally used in English to signify the granting of approval by an official authority. This may be a court of law, a government department, or an academic or professional body, any of which would normally work from a set of strict rules or standards to determine whether such approval should be given. The word may be considered very roughly synonymous with accreditation, and in fact in French and Spanish[1] may be used with regard to academic degrees (see apostille). Certified is another possible synonym, while to homologate is the infinitive verb form.

In today's marketplace, for instance, products must often be homologated by some public agency to assure that they meet standards for such things as safety and environmental impact. A court action may also sometimes be homologated by a judicial authority before it can proceed, and the term has a precise legal meaning in the judicial codes of some countries.

The equivalent process of testing and certification for conformance to technical standards is usually known as Type Approval in English-language jurisdictions.

[RobLav]

Perhaps Radon has a case vs SCCA with the rule changes... not my call.

However, IMO, the case against Enterprises is complete BS. FE cars are NOT direct competition with the Radon as alleged in the court document.

Secondly, the case against Piper is IMO complete BS. How many Piper / Fast Forward parts are on ALL Zetecs (obviously including Radon) nevermind a whole host of other parts??? If Piper conspired to prevent Radon from competing, then why did Piper supply the parts to the Radon?

Third, why isn't Ralph Firman Racing and Elan listed as other defendants when they are clearly linked with the alleged conspiracy as outlined in the court document? Especially with Radon constructor not being invited to the manufacturers meeting??? Is it because they are foreign corporations? (Sherman Anti-trust also applies to foreign nations.)

Lastly, I don't see the conspiracy. I studied the Radon in my weekend NHMS garage back at a school in 2011. Although I thought many design aspects were modern and well thought out, there were a few items where I questioned compliance with the GCR rules at the time. But it was not (and is not today) my position to determine what is compliant and what is not. A competitor needed to conduct a formal protest to get the wheels moving within SCCA to determine compliance. I don't think that has yet happened.

For full disclosure, I submitted an input to the CRB against the new FC rules revision.

On edit regarding homologation... I homologated my car twice. It is a technical verification of primarily safety items. It in no way determines compliance with all aspects of the GCR.

[KevinFirlein]

Nathan should sue whoever designed the diffuser that didnt meet the rule thats existed since 1986 as I pointed out in the duffuser thread to little fanfare and Indycar since he ignored his fc business to work with Gil DeFerren to design an Indy lite car only for Indycar to scrap the program. 7 radon vin numbers, as far as I know onlt 5 have seen the track and 2 of the owners have told me they wish they never heard oh Nathan Ulrich. Instead of suing people he should have been taking care of the guys he was charging nearly $100k for a F2k car

[RobLav]

I have to laugh at this one:

This is a quote from Senator John Sherman, the author of the Sherman Anti-trust law:

"To protect the consumers by preventing arrangements designed, or which tend, to advance the cost of goods to the consumer."

I seriously doubt that a $100K FC car entry into the market protects the consumer! If anything, SCCA was trying to protect the consumer by trying to keep costs down!

A rather twisted legal world we have today in America...

[Wren]

It will be interesting to see what a real judge considers homologation as...

I would be surprised if a judge has anything to say about it. Courts just don't get involved in the rules of voluntary organizations.

This is likely to end with a court reminding both Nathan and the SCCA(SCCA will countersue) of that and with everyone involved in Radon Sport being banned from the SCCA.

However, IMO, the case against Enterprises is complete BS. FE cars are NOT direct competition with the Radon as alleged in the court document.

Bizarre, but it probably has something to do with needing SCCA to have some sort of financial interest and trying to follow the Fran-Am template. I bet that Skirmants didn't enjoy being served on this. The FE is absolutely not a competitor to the Radon.

Especially with Radon constructor not being invited to the manufacturers meeting???

Radon was involved in the manufacturers meeting at the 2010 runoffs.

It is also curious that this conspiracy has decided to only go after the car that can't find the pace and falls apart a lot. Why hasn't the secret organization of FC builders (although two of the named parties don't build FC cars at all)gone after any of the new cars that are actually good?

2 of the owners have told me they wish they never heard oh Nathan Ulrich. Instead of suing people he should have been taking care of the guys he was charging nearly $100k for a F2k car

It kind of blows my mind that he never did anything to take care of the people that he accidentally sold $100k FS cars to.

I don't understand why people aren't suing Nathan.

[Daryl DeArman]

You are incorrect that those documents are the only assurance we can receive. We can also file a compliance review to deal with the legality issues.

Still no guarantee that the 990,901 components that you didn't ask for a compliance review are legal, or absent a protest, illegal.

It is also worth noting that the Radon could absolutely enter an SCCA race legally, just not in FC. They are not excluded from participating in the SCCA.

I get that, which is one of the reasons I find the whole thing interesting. My gut tells me they'll find in favor of Radon on at least one count, but how do they arrive at some amount of damages?

Can you imagine the nightmare if homologation was a guarantee of legality? There are people in the SCCA who show up every weekend with a different configuration of their car. If homologation was a guarantee of legality, we would have to re-apply for homologation every weekend. That is why homologation addresses basic construction safety issues and the protest/compliance review process deals with the legality of the car.

Agreed 100% which is exactly why every car that has entered a race and not been successfully protested is "okay to race" (rearward looking statement). That's the process that we operate under. You and I don't get to say it wasn't okay to race if we didn't do anything to prove otherwise.

[Daryl DeArman]

I would be surprised if a judge has anything to say about it. Courts just don't get involved in the rules of voluntary organizations.

They certainly do if someone brings suit and proves that laws are being broken.

Radon was involved in the manufacturers meeting at the 2010 runoffs.

I read the complaint to refer to the dinner the night before.

It is also curious that this conspiracy has decided to only go after the car that can't find the pace and falls apart a lot.

Better use the term "alleged conspiracy"....

Why hasn't the secret organization of FC builders (although two of the named parties don't build FC cars at all)gone after any of the new cars that are actually good?

...and there you go acknowledging the secret organization of FC builders and their suppliers. Maybe because there isn't anybody outside of their secret organization who sold more than 3 cars last year???

[Jnovak]

It is also worth noting that the Radon could absolutely enter an SCCA race legally, just not in FC. They are not excluded from participating in the SCCA.

Actually Keith, any Radon can enter any SCCA race in FC and compete. Of course they can be protested or there could possibly be a stewards action, however until that happens the club assumes that the car is legal.

[Wren]

They certainly do if someone brings suit and proves that laws are being broken.

Can you give an example? The doctrine of judicial noninterference seems well established.

No, organizations aren't free to break any law they want, but they are free to handle their internal affairs as they see fit.

I'm going to be surprised if a court really want to waste a court's time on someone not being allowed to run in the class that they want to.

I read the complaint to refer to the dinner the night before.

Maybe it is lashing out because not being invited to dinner hurt someone's feelings?

Maybe because there isn't anybody outside of their secret organization who sold more than 3 cars last year???

There appear to be lots of very good cars being imported right now at a pace that far outstrips the domestic producers named . Mygale and Spectrum immediately spring to mind. All of the drama is centered around one manufacturer.

Actually Keith, any Radon can enter any SCCA race in FC and compete. Of course they can be protested or there could possibly be a stewards action, however until that happens the club assumes that the car is legal.

I agree that they can enter the race in FC and I think that is what I said. I don't agree that the club assumes the car to be legal, I don't think the club takes any position on legality at all. It is left to the stewards and the competitors.

[Daryl DeArman]

Can you give an example? The doctrine of judicial noninterference seems well established.

Plenty of private country clubs have been sued over the years for various reasons.

The NCAA has been sued more than once, and I found this bit from a judicial review of NCAA decisions apropos:

Courts have held that the general principles of judicial non-interference with the internal decisions of private associations do not apply to dominant organizations whose rulings effectively prevent individuals from participating in an important activity, including a profession or sports. Thus, decisions by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) are subject to challenge...

[Daryl DeArman]

This is a civil matter, much lower burden of proof and no need for an unanimous decision. I believe the hard part is going to be convincing a jury to award significant actual damages. Who knows? Time will tell. I'm done on this one.

[rperry]

"To protect the consumers by preventing arrangements designed, or which tend, to advance the cost of goods to the consumer."

I seriously doubt that a $100K FC car entry into the market protects the consumer! If anything, SCCA was trying to protect the consumer by trying to keep costs down!

There are two parts to this. First, where does the 100k number come from? What does a roller from Radon cost vs. a roller from RFR? Elan? I think they are all pretty similar and all below 100k.

Second, it is well known economic doctrine that competition works to reduce prices and/or increase the features & quality of a product at a given constant price. The Radon puts price pressure on these cars - didn't RFR drop prices last year significantly? Anti-competitive practices, such as banning the Radon, distort free and effective competition and increase prices.

The only exception to this would be if the Radon came in and outdated all other chassis in terms of performance, which it was specifically engineered not to do, and has not done.

[rperry]

It is also curious that this conspiracy has decided to only go after the car that can't find the pace and falls apart a lot. Why hasn't the secret organization of FC builders (although two of the named parties don't build FC cars at all)gone after any of the new cars that are actually good?

You like to go after the car's performance with your distorted opinion quite a lot. Let's have some hard facts instead. The Radon was run in two races by a fast young driver (Fabio Orsolon) and here's how he did in timed sessions:

Fabio wasn't able to test before driving the car. At VIR his fastest laps were P1, P3, P3, P2, P2, P2. At Road Atlanta his fastest laps were P3, P2, P2, P3, P1, DNS (starter), P4, P4. With more funding, there is little doubt he would have won races in 2012. I am not sure how you define all those P1/2/3's as "can't find the pace."

EDIT: here are his 2011 results, I believe in an RFR. Watkins glen: 32, 12, 23, 23, 23, 20, DNS, DNS. At road atlanta his fastest laps were: DNS, 12, 13, 11, 12, 10.

[jimh3063]

For the record, the chassis is 67K. If you look at the workmanship vs most other cars, it's quite good. As for the cars falling apart. I think there has been no works car and no factory backed effort to run the car with a Pro Driver to work teething issues. The one time they did, the car came in second on it's first race. Not bad for a car that went through NO real factory test program. The little issues that have cropped up are the direct result of no testing period. I'll leave that to Nathan figure that out. My car vibrated a lot through the steering shaft. We put rubber mounts on all the parts in question. Problem solved. The tinnerman washers seem to not spread the load enough so the diffuser bolts back off, so we changed a lot of the washers. I'm not sure but those seem like teething problems in a brand new car. I can't imagine all new cars don't go through the same process.

I would like to hear from someone who owns a Citation how much the car actually costs to get it to the track. It's a bitzer, so I'm sure it's not cheap as you have to source parts from everywhere to put it together. Tim did a great job in VIR. Ask him why the car did so well. I'm sure he will tell you they did a lot of testing and figured the issues out. I'm sure the Radon with the same testing and same level of driver would do the same.

As for the RFR, Ralph has been building cars since I was a wee tike. He has a better idea on the car manufacturing process than any of the other car makers. I'm sure that contributes to the cost structure of an RFR. He also sells different iterations of the same car. Higher volume = lower overall costs. Good for him.

I keep saying it and will say it again, let the process take it's course. If there was anything done that was illegal on both sides, it will come out on court. This whole thing finally stands a chance of being put to bed once and for all. Let it happen and be patient.

None of us has all the info. NO ONE on either side. Let nature take is course and let's see where we end up. All we are doing is pissing each other off. Not very productive.

[dc]

We're on a path right now to have every thread that mentions Radon locked instantly. I'm so tired of this BS from the same 4-5 people.