February 2014 Prelims

[pamrichardson]

...are posted: http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472

[BWC54]

In FF for the Honda you can now use a Quicksilver clutch friction disk. Anyone know the differences between the Quicksilver and the stock Honda disk?

[eospeed]

In FF for the Honda you can now use a Quicksilver clutch friction disk. Anyone know the differences between the Quicksilver and the stock Honda disk?

The only difference is the QS disk has a unsprung hub.

[Wren]

Seriously, please stop changing FC rules.

Does anyone want spec lines and the sandbagging/complaining that are going to come along with it.

Everyone write your letters.

The only difference is the QS disk has a unsprung hub.

Does it use the same input shaft as the Honda clutch?

[problemchild]

The only difference is the QS disk has a unsprung hub.

This is a good rule. I'm tired of changing clutch discs every 5 or 6 weekends, always in the middle of an event. The Pro Series allows the QS disc which eliminates any durability issues.
For info, the disc itself, generally does not fail, but the broken pieces of spring get jammed in various places, which causes the problems.

[SOseth]

Seriously, please stop changing FC rules.


Does it use the same input shaft as the Honda clutch?

Yes

SteveO

[Wren]

Yes

SteveO

Thanks for the info. The clutch seems like the right way to go, I just wouldn't want to have to purchase another input shaft.


-Break-


Every FF/FC competitor needs to go read these rules. They are vague, poorly written and a complete departure from what FF and FC have been for the last 40+ years. These rules seem intended to try to force FF and FC down different paths. I know these rules would make my DB-6 illegal and probably a whole lot of other cars as well. Everyone needs to read these rules and go write your letters to the CRB. Copy the BOD as well. I'm really struggling to understand why the CRB thought this was a good idea.

[DaveW]

Every FF/FC competitor needs to go read these rules. They are vague, poorly written and a complete departure from what FF and FC have been for the last 40+ years. These rules seem intended to try to force FF and FC down different paths. I know these rules would make my DB-6 illegal and probably a whole lot of other cars as well. Everyone needs to read these rules and go write your letters to the CRB. Copy the BOD as well. I'm really struggling to understand why the CRB thought this was a good idea.

The proposed instrument panel attachment rule (no less than 6" centers) would make my panel attachment illegal (trapezoidal pattern with the fasteners on the left and right edges 4.5" apart). It makes no sense, since mine is mounted on rubber isolators, so it sure can't stiffen anything...

The rest of the FC proposals seem like they are written in lawyerese, but I think I see the point.

[Wren]

The proposed instrument panel attachment rule (no less than 6" centers) would make my panel attachment illegal (trapezoidal pattern with the fasteners on the left and right edges 4.5" apart). It makes no sense, since mine is mounted on rubber isolators, so it sure can't stiffen anything...

Yep. I don't know when the rules for allowing stressed panels in the front and main roll hoop bulkheads came in to the GCR (1986?), but I know that my DB-6 takes advantage of it to mount the carbon fiber panel I use as a dash. Every other car I have ever owned mounted the dash on less than 6" centers as well.

Did the CRB forget this? Did they decide that our dashboards were too much of a threat now?

I suspect that rule is an oversight that comes down to just not knowing what is in the GCR. But, the rest of these rules seem designed to completely change FC.

The rest of the FC proposals seem like they are written in lawyerese, but I think I see the point.

I will admit that I don't see the point. I am going to take the advice I gave someone else in another thread and call the CRB tonight.

[Germg]

Wren

How would this make the DB-6 illegal?

I do see that the path the FC will be going down, which will now include a carbon semi monocoque tub. Not what the class needs. Why make the change from having to perform the same without the panel to now saying all it has to do is roll without the side panels?

Jeremy

[Wren]

Wren

How would this make the DB-6 illegal?

My dash is installed on closer than 6" centers. I suspect most people have this problem as it has been specifically allowed in the past.

[DaveW]

...I do see that the path the FC will be going down, which will now include a carbon semi monocoque tub. Not what the class needs. Why make the change from having to perform the same without the panel to now saying all it has to do is roll without the side panels?.

Quote the minutes:

"The chassis must be capable of rolling without any such frame-exterior panels installed."

I missed that. Thanks for waking me up. That is, indeed, a very weak and meaningless requirement.

I agree that these proposals are poorly thought out.

[Germg]

I did not think of the dash mounts but That will make my car illegal. 5.75 between the blots that hold the dash on with lord mounts. The dash mounts really, not like the dash is holding anything but switches and the steering column

[DaveW]

I just sent mine, mentioning these issues.
------------------------------------------------------
Please reconsider these proposals. They are, IMO, not well thought out.

There are at least 2 glaring problems:
1. Limitation on instrument-panel fasteners to no less than 6" apart - this will make a huge # of cars illegal, including mine (Citation 95SFZ). The side pairs of rubber-mounted panel fasteners are only 4.5" apart.
2. Exterior panel wording - "The chassis must be capable of rolling without any such frame-exterior panels installed." This is essentially meaningless. A frame so weak as to not be able to carry the driver could pass this requirement. That would allow the exterior panels to be a major component in the frame stiffness - BAD idea. It would lead to expensive, semi-monocoque, chassis'.
----------------------------------------------------------

[Wren]

So I picked up the phone and no one is talking about anything. It's the most close lipped response I have ever gotten.

The rest of the FC proposals seem like they are written in lawyerese, but I think I see the point.

I do see that the path the FC will be going down, which will now include a carbon semi monocoque tub. Not what the class needs. Why make the change from having to perform the same without the panel to now saying all it has to do is roll without the side panels?

Jeremy

I guess I can see the point better now too and where it came from and where it is going.

[KevinFirlein]

well now you know the results of a certain lawsuit and what its doing to the rule book

[Wren]

2. Exterior panel wording - "The chassis must be capable of rolling without any such frame-exterior panels installed." This is essentially meaningless. A frame so weak as to not be able to carry the driver could pass this requirement. That would allow the exterior panels to be a major component in the frame stiffness - BAD idea. It would lead to expensive, semi-monocoque, chassis'.
----------------------------------------------------------

I just started paying more attention to this newly proposed rule. I had a problem with the last rule as well as "perform to the same level or degree" is pretty vague also.

This rule doesn't mention that the car has to have all of the required chassis components, which something that the first semi-monocoque chassis lacks. It doesn't mention whether the car has to remain at the same ride height or measurements. So if the car drops down to the limits of the sphericals in the A-arms or everything is wobbling around but can still be rolled around the paddock then it is legal? there needs to be a lot more wording here to strengthen this.

[eospeed]

Seriously, please stop changing FC rules.

Does anyone want spec lines and the sandbagging/complaining that are going to come along with it.

Everyone write your letters.





Does it use the same input shaft as the Honda clutch?

Yes it dose

[Steve Demeter]

9.1.1.B.5.a states that the full width of the lowest surface licked.... by the airstream... is the reference surface.

This would seem, at least to me, that sidepod floors and the front portion of most diffusers are now part of the reference surface. How does this account for hte fact that neither of these are almost never flush perfectly with the bellypan, the usual reference surface.

What am I missing, if anything.

[R. Pare]

Steve:

The sentence actually states reference area, not reference surface. Floorpans, sidepod bottoms, forward sections of diffusers, etc, have always been part of the defined reference area. I think that you are confusing reference area with reference surface. The reference surface is defined by the car owner (or the manufacturer) as the zero point for measuring compliance of the reference area.

[Wren]

I sent my letter in today.

well now you know the results of a certain lawsuit and what its doing to the rule book

So it seems. It's interesting to trace the chronology of this whole thing

-it's a conspiracy, go back to the 2012 rules
-oops, our car was never legal
-let me rewrite the rules to: 1. Make a whole bunch of currently legal cars illegal 2. Separate FC and FF from each other 3. redefine the future of FC to completely change the path that it will go down

All FF and FC drivers should be writing their letters. Even if you aren't in FF and FC, you should be writing a letter. This is messed up.

[reidhazelton]

After taking some time and read through the proposed "rules" changes, I have come to the conclusion this whole thing is bullshi!. It is one thing to take your ball and go home because you can't play by the code of the playground that has been in effect for 20+ years, but it is another thing entirely to go cry to your mom and bring her back to make everyone else play your game. Frankly, I am pretty pissed.

If we are to assume that FF and FC chassis rules are suppose to go hand in hand, then this would make my car illegal. If we are to assume that this "rules" change is to sever the ties between FF and FC then that will drastically hamper constructors efforts in designing new cars. Mfg's use a common chassis for FF, FC, and FB. From what I have heard from several Mfg's over the years, that is really the only way to make it profitable, and just barely. Now, if you take FC out of the mix, and you have to design a unique car just for FC, do you think any new FCs will come out? No. No mfg is going to design a unique FC chassis when that class is near death in SCCA. FC has had one foot in the grave and one foot on a banana peel for a few years now, and this would be the push to finally send it to it's death.

And...who ever wrote these has no business writing rules. "Rollling"? WTF is that? Ambiguous much? That section alone makes it pretty easy to make a semi monocoque chassis that (if someone ever made one that was better than the current crop) could have a huge advantage.

I am writing my letter against this tonight. It is pretty clear to see that this only benifits one person who could not play by the rules to begin with, and at the expense of the whole of SCCA and the current 100's of cars.

[Jnovak]

We all know what this is about. I see that it is a "what do you think" item. We simply need to Make sure that the CRB and the BoD understand what the MEMBERSHIP of this club wants.

It is clear to me that these proposal are intended to allow a certain car be made legal.

Send your letters. About 1000 should get the job done.

I will be sending my letter in ASAP.

[reidhazelton]

Ok...I don't write many letters and am having a hard time finding the link to submit to. Can someone please post the link for submittals?

[Peter Olivola]

http://www.crbscca.com

[reidhazelton]

Thank you Peter.

Letter #13401 submitted. Obviously, against.

[Dennis Valet]

[Steve Bamford]

Letter # 13398 submitted FC rule changes against.

[Wren]

Letter #13390 against.

After taking some time and read through the proposed "rules" changes, I have come to the conclusion this whole thing is bullshi!. It is one thing to take your ball and go home because you can't play by the code of the playground that has been in effect for 20+ years, but it is another thing entirely to go cry to your mom and bring her back to make everyone else play your game. Frankly, I am pretty pissed.

If we are to assume that FF and FC chassis rules are suppose to go hand in hand, then this would make my car illegal. If we are to assume that this "rules" change is to sever the ties between FF and FC then that will drastically hamper constructors efforts in designing new cars. Mfg's use a common chassis for FF, FC, and FB. From what I have heard from several Mfg's over the years, that is really the only way to make it profitable, and just barely. Now, if you take FC out of the mix, and you have to design a unique car just for FC, do you think any new FCs will come out? No. No mfg is going to design a unique FC chassis when that class is near death in SCCA. FC has had one foot in the grave and one foot on a banana peel for a few years now, and this would be the push to finally send it to it's death.

And...who ever wrote these has no business writing rules. "Rollling"? WTF is that? Ambiguous much? That section alone makes it pretty easy to make a semi monocoque chassis that (if someone ever made one that was better than the current crop) could have a huge advantage.

I am writing my letter against this tonight. It is pretty clear to see that this only benifits one person who could not play by the rules to begin with, and at the expense of the whole of SCCA and the current 100's of cars.

Exactly.

Maybe we need to come up with some other forms of compromise? I know that the SCCA has said no new classes, but maybe we could give these guys their own class? Alternately, how about if we just decide to give anyone who enters a Radon a trophy? A participation trophy would be as meaningful as getting a trophy for running your car in a class where it took a lawsuit to make your car legal. I volunteer to pay for these trophies.

To discuss the rules more. The changes to the rules for panel attachment are a mess. They restrict the panel to attachment no more than every 6", but they allow the panels to be attached however they want to other carbon panels. The 6" restriction won't be much of a burden if the frame is there to meet the minimum requirement for the frame and the panels are doing most of the work (see attached photo). It's also not clear to me whether or not we would be allowed to sandwich the panels between suspension mounts and the frames.

This photo makes me wonder. Did they every add the required diagonal leg protection frame pieces (2014 GCR 9.1.1.3.c, 2012 GCR 9.4.5.c.2 & 9.1.1.D.7.a). I know they were warned by the SCCA in 2010 and I hope they would have gone back and added basic required safety parts of the frame.

[BWC54]

FF QS clutch inclusion for.

Don't need to write on the clutch disk. It's a done deal effective 1/31/14.

[alangbaker]

I'm a new boy in this game—2013 was my first season of racing ever, but as I'm in a Formula Ford and as I can see the advantages of having a group of classes that are close enough in some of the basic rules to make it easier for manufacturers to stay in business...

...I too have sent a letter(/request) to the CRB via crbscca.com indicating my opposition to this rule change. (Letter #13411)

My I also suggest to FC competitors:

It may be frustrating to do, but if you're truly opposed to this change and it goes through anyway: refuse to race with Radons.

[stonebridge20]

My I also suggest to FC competitors:

It may be frustrating to do, but if you're truly opposed to this change and it goes through anyway: refuse to race with Radons.

I've got about 30 years on ya. Historically,.....That doesn't work in SCCA.

[chuck cecil]

Letter 13413 sent against rule change.

[kea]

Against, #13417

[Wren]

My I also suggest to FC competitors:

It may be frustrating to do, but if you're truly opposed to this change and it goes through anyway: refuse to race with Radons.

I think this is a step too far. I don't think that the Radon owners are the real problem. I honestly feel bad for them. They bought their car in good faith that it was going to be legal, now they are stuck with their cars in some kind of GCR limbo. I would be surprised if any of them are happy that they decided to go down this path.

Club entries are also pretty rare for the Radon. The owners tend to have most of their entries in the pro series where they can expect to be allowed to run regardless of compliance.

[Camadella]

Until now, no one associated with the Radon camp has posted any reply to this post. I think it's that old adage about getting into a pissing match. I don't actually own a Radon, but I've worked with the Radon folks quite extensively, and I think that for the sake of clarity, I should try to correct some of the "facts" that have been circulating on this thread.

I think the Radon is a good car. It's carbon side panels offer much more protection than a conventional car against side impacts, and in general, I think it's a much safer car than the ones that have been manufactured unchanged for the last 20 years or so. It is admittedly a novel and new design based on modern materials and manufacturing techniques - this stuff does in fact change over time. I sort of doubt you're using a 20 year old mobile phone design, yet everyone seems to think that we should stick to old race car designs. That's fine - that's what vintage racing is for.

I also think that I'm not sure what your point is - refuse to race with Radons? Why? Are they several seconds per lap faster than the cars made by the other manufacturers? Ummm - no, in fact no Radon has won a race. They're competitive - but appear to be no more so than a properly prepared car from another manufacturer - so I'm trying to figure out why you're so opposed to them - a matter of principle, I guess? Or just the fact that you don't want those nasty Radon folks to make a living selling race cars?

In any case, as I said, I'd like to correct some of the things that have been circulated.

1. The Radon was not designed in a vacuum. It was designed with extensive consultation with then members of the FSRAC and the CRB, including Dave Gomberg and Mike Eakin.

2. Despite anyone's statements to the contrary, the Radon meets the 2012 rules. Several CRB members and the SCCA COA have verified this is true, as well as at least three nationally licensed tech inspectors. The Radon has never been protested, challenged, or found to be illegal by any scrutineer or official.

3. The SCCA has already allowed the first seven Radons to be raced as delivered, and repeatedly stated, both publicly and privately, that they are compliant with the 2012 rules. If they were unsafe in some way, the SCCA would not allow them to run. And, did I mention that I don't see one of those cars out there kicking your ass, do I? If they are, it's probably not the car - since some Citations and V-D's are doing just fine.

4. The 2013 rules made several features of the Radon illegal, and are quite ambiguous. The updated rule set allows them, with the allowance for competition adjustments in the event that they somehow magically start kicking your ass despite the fact that haven't done that so far. The new rules proposal eliminates the possibility of someone else using carbon composites in some other way in an effort to kick your ass (i.e., to paraphrase a post on one of the many other threads on this subject, to prevent someone who actually knows what he's doing to build a car using carbon composites).

5. Since this rules change doesn't affect any other cars, and since the Radons aren't changing the landscape of FC racing, even at the pro level, and since there's a provision for a competition adjustment, I'm having a hard time understanding the opposition.

Cheers,

CC

[alangbaker]

Until now, no one associated with the Radon camp has posted any reply to this post. I think it's that old adage about getting into a pissing match. I don't actually own a Radon, but I've worked with the Radon folks quite extensively, and I think that for the sake of clarity, I should try to correct some of the "facts" that have been circulating on this thread.

3. The SCCA has already allowed the first seven Radons to be raced as delivered, and repeatedly stated, both publicly and privately, that they are compliant with the 2012 rules.

Is there somewhere I could read this public statement?

[Wren]

3. The SCCA has already allowed the first seven Radons to be raced as delivered, and repeatedly stated, both publicly and privately, that they are compliant with the 2012 rules. If they were unsafe in some way, the SCCA would not allow them to run. And, did I mention that I don't see one of those cars out there kicking your ass, do I? If they are, it's probably not the car - since some Citations and V-D's are doing just fine.

Where are these public statements? Can I get a name? A link? A pdf?

In all of the arguments regarding what does ferrous/non-ferrous mean or is the Radon legal, the Radon guys have been absolutely unwilling to share the compliance review information.

I had a Radon owner tell me that they asked for compliance on the bulkhead, the floor, and the panels. Was there something else that they asked for a compliance ruling on?

Why won't Radon share their compliance information if it is really public already?

---Now on to everything else---

Or just the fact that you don't want those nasty Radon folks to make a living selling race cars?

Why would anyone think that this is about money or people not wanting Radon to participate in the racecar market? Radon is not the only company new to the SCCA formula car market. Have companies like Phoenix, Spectrum, Philly, or anyone else run into problems? The reality is that this is about compliance and not trying to put anyone out of business. If Radon had shown up with something compliant to the GCR then there would have never been a problem.

I suspect that lap times play a much larger role in whether or not the Radon guys will be able to make a living selling race cars.

1. The Radon was not designed in a vacuum. It was designed with extensive consultation with then members of the FSRAC and the CRB, including Dave Gomberg and Mike Eakin.

As Nathan pointed out on apexspeed years ago, an opinion from someone like Dave means just as much as an opinion from me or any other member. In hindsight, you might have done well to listen to some of the contrary opinions. It could have saved everyone a lot of money and hassle.

2. Despite anyone's statements to the contrary, the Radon meets the 2012 rules.

Prove it.

I have shared with the forum a ruling from the COA that non-ferrous in the GCR only applies to metals and that there is a difference between the rear roll hoop and the main roll hoop(that surprised me too) and that a diffuser designed in the manner of the Radon is not compliant with the 2012 GCR. Do you have a ruling from the COA that disagrees? If you have that ruling, why wouldn't you share it?

I suspect that sharing information that proves your car is compliant would go a long way towards getting people to write in support of the proposed Radon rules for FC.

Several CRB members and the SCCA COA have verified this is true, as well as at least three nationally licensed tech inspectors. The Radon has never been protested, challenged, or found to be illegal by any scrutineer or official.

Fun fact: One of those three nationally licensed tech inspectors is where I have gotten my information on what was illegal on the Radon. He shared his "serious concerns" with a lot of other people.

4. The 2013 rules made several features of the Radon illegal, and are quite ambiguous. The updated rule set allows them, with the allowance for competition adjustments in the event that they somehow magically start kicking your ass despite the fact that haven't done that so far. The new rules proposal eliminates the possibility of someone else using carbon composites in some other way in an effort to kick your ass (i.e., to paraphrase a post on one of the many other threads on this subject, to prevent someone who actually knows what he's doing to build a car using carbon composites).

5. Since this rules change doesn't affect any other cars, and since the Radons aren't changing the landscape of FC racing, even at the pro level, and since there's a provision for a competition adjustment, I'm having a hard time understanding the opposition.

These two points sum up what is the biggest problem with this rules proposal: Competition Adjustments. All that adding competition adjustments to the class will do is open the door to sandbagging and whining.

Formula Ford and Formula Continental are formula classes. The entire concept of these classes is that everyone gets the same set of rules and whoever shows up with the best car/driver combination wins.

From Nathan's own words, he was trying to obsolete the field when he was developing the Radon. The great thing is that trying to do that is exactly what a car builder is supposed to be trying to do. If he had worked within the rules to try to do that then no one would have any room to complain. It would just mean that everyone else needs to work harder. It's been done in other classes.

People need to notice that this proposed rule set opens the door to specification lines for the class. This is not what FF and FC are about. People should be able to show up with a better mousetrap and not have to worry about getting a lead trophy or smaller restrictor. Their mousetrap just needs to be compliant to the rules.

Everyone, please go write your letters about this subject.

www.crbscca.com

[reidhazelton]

Here is a whacky idea. If there are the super secret, sealed, magic papers that say the Radon was, is, and will be legal, and SCCA CRB, COA, C3PO, R2D2 have said that it is....why not share the magic documents. Simply saying you have proof of something is not proof.

If I had these papers, I would have shared them way, way before I got a lawyer involved and started suing the bajeezus out of everyone and anyone.

It is getting old claiming these exist, when no one has ever seen them. Sharing them now will likely do little good to change public opinion of Radon (not to be confused with Radon owners) as Nathan and the lawsuit has tainted his company beyond repair.

Also, these rules affect EVERY car in FC, FF, FB, albiet indirectly in some instances. Like Wren said, this is FORMULA racing. Not lead trophies. Another change to the code of the playground we have all played by for 20+ years, and changing it because someone can't and won't play by those rules is insulting to those that have.

Not only does the rules change affect those classes, but this hole dookie storm affects everyone in SCCA. We are all paying for this farce to continue in legal proceedings. Sure, amortized over 55,000 members it might be $5 a member all said and done, but it is still $5. I would rather donate that $5 to the Worker Fund than the BS fund.

[jimh3063]

Not to cloud the issue with facts but I think I need to point out there is a spec line in the GCR for the car (why would they put one in for an illegal car?),
I've asked numerous officials, several members of the BoD, and they all confirmed my Radon was legal to race as delivered. Two members of the CRB tasked with inspecting the Radon in January 2013 looked at your car and confirmed publicly it was legal per the 2012 rules.I have more than myself as a witness to those conversations.

Statements and claims that are being made are not based on ANY facts whatsoever. People are making statements that have never been up close to one, that have never sat in a CRB or any other meeting of the boards that run our club and yet seem to be an authority on Radon's.

I wish I had the keen insight and knowledge on things that people have never seen up close and meetings they've never attended.

I like my car, I plan on driving my car. I can actually speak to the actual car because I own and drive it and have been more than 100 feet away from an actual radon.

There is a lot more I'd like to say but I think I'd rather be more productive with my time.
I would ask that anyone who reads this thread dig deeper, look at the FACTS, ask someone who owns a radon to take a look at it. I think you'll find it may not be the fastest car on the grid but it is extremely well built, well thought out and a lot safer than what is currently on the grid in my opinion. Take close look yourself and see what you think.

It is 50 lbs heavier than my VD. Most of that weight is side protection panels. I accept the fact the I chose safety over weight hence performance deficit, but it is whats important to me. I have a bad back and carpal tunnel. The seating position is laid back more than my VD. When I get out of the car, I don't feel sore. I can't recite the GCR like others but I do feel at the time it was deemed to be legal at the time it was built. I do have docs from the SCCA stating so. I promised Nathan I would not share that doc and I will keep that promise until he tell me otherwise. If any board member is on this thread they can confirm what I have stated on the legality at the time.

Whatever happens, I strongly recommend that people come and take a close look at an actual car before they read into any statements make by people who have not. I am willing to let anyone who cares take a look at anything they want. I am willing to show them the doc I have from the scca, but not let them take a copy. If you have done that, I think you can actually make statements that are based on facts not innuendo and hypothesis.

I am speaking for all the other Radon owners, but I am sure all of them would welcome anyone who asked to look at the car, with the GCR in front of them and the doc from the SCCA there too. We all have it. Lets be sensible, factual and not let others make decisions for us based on information that is not factual.

I would also add that times are changing newer chassis are coming out. We are not a vintage class. CF or Club Continental is the way to go is you want to run and old formula car. Maybe it's time to look at things that make our class better. The radon didn't break the mold and kill the grid. It is a safer car than what else is out there albeit not faster. Be open to looking at things that move the class forward and make things safer. A man in the master class in a chassis that was designed many years ago clobbered the grid in the pro series. Proof the Radon or any of the other stuff that was new on the grid didn't make the other cars obsolete. In the end we all vote with our wallet. If you don't like the car, don't buy it. Real simple.

Back to the real world folks. All I ask is that you make an balanced and informed decision based on facts. Everyone on this thread has enough car smarts to read what I have and look at my car. You can make an educated judgement that will be based on information that is factual.

I've pissed away WAY more time on this that I should have but there are always two sides to every story. This is mine.

Now I must get back to the real work. Wren, pm is you want to argue. I'll get to it when I have time.

Jimmy Radon Serial# 5