February 2014 Prelims

[KevinFirlein]

Just for evidence, Citation, Metrik, Firman and Van Dieman ( Elan ) are all evidence of companies that well sell you band new cars that are perfectly legal. I am quite tired of this 'vintage' car argument BS , especially since the 01 VD is still one of the fastest cars on the track and can be fitted with perfectly legal anti intrusion panels per the GCR. Nothing but the facts ma'am.

[alangbaker]

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.

Which officials? "Legal to race" in what context? Which two members?

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.

Can you share his reason for not wanting a document made public which would (if it actually said what you claim it does) completely end this controversy?

I am willing to show them the doc I have from the scca, but not let them take a copy.

So hypothetically, you'd let every single person on Apexspeed see this document...

...but you won't simply scan it and post it here?

I really don't understand that. Would you care to explain your rationale?

[Wren]

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 think they reason they put it in there was that the Radon owners wrote letters in and asked for it. There is no judgment on the legality of the car and the CRB has no authority to declare the car compliant or non-compliant.

To refresh everyone's memories, here is the current rule for the radon

Cars bearing the following homologation numbers:
110056, 110057, 110058, 110059, 110060,
110061, and 110062 must comply with 2012 GCR
FC rules, must be “as delivered” from the manufacturer
and must meet current safety and weight requirements.
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.

Emphasis is mine.

According to CRB members that I called after this rule went in, this requires that the Radon be compliant to the 2012 rules. There is no judgment of whether or not the car is legal.

Statements and claims that are being made are not based on ANY facts whatsoever.

It is a fact that the COA said that non-ferrous does include carbon fiber under the 2012 rules.

It is a fact that the Radon designer said that the Radon required nonferrous to include carbon fiber for the Radon to be legal.

I think that a lot of people here would like to know more of the facts surrounding the Radon. I have put my facts out there. The only "fact" we have regarding the Radon compliance is that the owners claim that they have documents that make the car compliant. That's not actually a fact.

To try to keep this discussion relevant to the discussion of the proposed rules and what kind of letters people should write in:

My opinion regarding these proposed rules would change 180 degrees if there was a "fact" out there that the car was legal. I will write a new letter and advocate just as loudly for most of the parts of the new rule set if someone makes that fact available.

I would still not support the part of the rules that separate the rules for FF and FC. I believe it is extremely important that FF and FC rules stay together. If the carbon panels used to be legal for FC, then they should also be legal for FF. I would also never support spec lines. Let the rules be what they are and let the best car/driver combo win.

I think the facts that would change my opinion would be the material submitted to the COA, the SOM ruling, and the COA ruling. I would want to be sure that the request was more than a picture from 50 feet away and one sentence that said, "Hey, is this legal?"

I suspect that I am not the only one who would support this rule change if there was proof out there that the Radon was legal in 2012.

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.

If the designer of the Radon goes on this forum and points out what is not legal on the car, does anyone really need to inspect the car up close?

But, one of those people whose authority Camadella appealed to went around telling people what wasn't legal on the car. I had no reason to think they weren't telling the truth. They confirmed the claims of the Radon designer.

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.

So, would you be willing to share pictures of the questionable parts of the car with the forum?

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.

Pictures?

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.

Are you going to be at the April F2000 event at Road Atlanta?

I would also add that times are changing newer chassis are coming out. We are not a vintage class.

New chassis are coming out and that is great. The reason that all of the other new chassis are not having any of the drama is that they built compliant cars.

Maybe it's time to look at things that make our class better.

It's always a good time to look at things that could make our class better. Reasonable people often hold different opinions on what would make the class better.

I just don't think that this proposed rule set will make our class better. I am open to listening to people who think otherwise.

[KevinFirlein]

*Please* don't turn this into another direct Radon is illegal pissing match or you *know* what Doug will be forced to do to this thread. this thread is about lawsuits driving rules and that shouldnt be how the process works. Keep this one open or not flat out deleted so people can get the word out and write the CRB and the BoD.

[Dennis McCarthy]

The whole Radon thing is a tired argument. Bob Wright ran his car in four majors races in Sebring and PBIR this month. Anyone could have protested, no one bothered, including the drivers who actually competed....

[reidhazelton]

Again with the super secret documents....


Post them. If they are what is claimed, I will eat Wren's socks.

[KevinFirlein]

the ' no one protested ' argument is also a bit tired. Despite what is posted and read here. The over whelming majority of racers just want to race and don't care for anything other then racing including me. I've never protested anyone , ever. That includes the guy at the Runoffs I watched his crew put arm fulls of loose lead into the sidepods of his RT40 while waiting in line to get scaled post qually ( which the way they did it at the time meant he was top 6) or the guy who post Runoffs qually rear wing was enough over height not to get a benefit of the doubt. No tech inspector wants to toss a top 6 car ( he was inn front of me on grid after final Q ) so they let him remove his car from measuring garage and turn it around , like that would matter. They pushed the car completely out of the tent the cars were staged in after being teched so I walked out and watched as the removed the valve cores from the tires and pushed it back in with flat tires. It passed with flying colors now and no one from tech thought to ask why. I simply walked to his paddock spot after we were released and told them I knew what they did and watched them turn beat red. Better then any protest. I started 6th in my 83 rt4 him 4th in his RT41, I was by him mid turn of the 1st corner and gone after bigger fish.

[jimh3063]

Alan, Wren knows who the two crb members are. Ask him.
As much as I would like to see it, I would never hold Reid to eating Wrens socks.
Wren, Reid, Kevin, Alan, etc, I won't publish the doc I have because when I bought the car I was asked not to unless I was protested. I am a man of my word. I was never asked not to show it to anyone just not post it. That's why I won't post it. I hope you can appreciate that. If you want, go look at any car. We all have the doc for what was self protested and deemed legal. I am referring to self protest of the body panels. Anyone is welcome look at the car, and the doc you can see the names of the people who wrote it and voted on it. You can ask them about their choices. I was not in the room nor was I privy to any of the decision making process. I just was given the doc from the self protests when the car was being developed in case I was protested.

Lets look at this a different way if we may. Please post a picture and the section of the GCR on a specific part of the car that is illegal and tell us why. Please be very specific and show a picture, the gcr rule it violates and how it violates it. Specificity of what makes a radon illegal seems to be like kryptonite around here.

I will say that my car, like most formula cars is a kit. You can either assemble it yourself or pay someone else to. I choose to pay Glen Phillips to assemble mine. We were all given the parts to assemble our car to meet the GCR in 2012. My car itself is legal to those rules. I am too tall to meet the broomstick rule so a part was added to my role hoop to make me in my car meet the broomstick rule. That is the only part of the car I know for sure was not legal when I am in it. It is me in the car not the car. Fabio can sit in the first car and meet the broomstick rule. I just wanted to add that because comments have been made about the cars not meeting the broomstick rule. It is the driver in the car that has to meet it not the car itself as a shorter person could pass in ALL radons. Radon 6 and 7 have taller hoops.

I am sure I'm not telling anyone here that maybe a certain person could have spoken to some of the other people who manufacture cars with a bit more respect and may come off as arrogant. I would agree with that statement. I would say that being arrogant does not make your car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.

I'm sure a certain person could have made an attempt to come more into the fold of the class and get more involved in a positive way in the class. That fact that it didn't happen but it doesn't make the car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.

Sueing the SCCA may piss a lot of people off, but it doesn't make his car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.

I am going to quote one of the people on the crb who came and looked at my car at Sebring "he is pushing the envelope but the car is legal" per the doc he reviewed after looking at Bob W and my car at Sebring. Pushing the envelope doesn't make your car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.

There are a lot of opinions running around this board. Most are just that. Come look at the car and review the doc. You will see the car is what I've said. The bodywork seems to be the biggest bone of contention. It was reviewed during a self protest and deemed legal once he modified it as he was told to. Again I need to keep saying this, the car has to be legal by the 2012 rules. The rules were changed in 2013 with the very specific intent to make it illegal. Hats off to a job well done. It does not meet the 2013 rules but is grandfathered in as we all know.

Again, look at the car and doc. Make your own decision. If you're not near the Northeast of South Fla where all the Radon's reside, maybe you can come to one of the pro races and take a peek. As far as input to the new rules submissions, I would ask that you remove the radon from the equation. Do the proposed mods make the cars better and safer. Do the proposed rule mods further the progression of the class. Someone felt that in 2012 changing the rules did. 20 years of the exact same rules needed modifications for some reason. I'm not really sure why that was the case but I am only one person. Just take the people and personalities out and vote on the proposed rule changes based on the merits or lack thereof.

Vote on the Radon with your wallet. The 7 cars that are already built are grandfathered in. They have been running for a few years at many SCCA events. There were two at Sebring and Moroso at the beginning of January Majors for all to see and protest. No one did. They've been to enough SCCA events if someone truly felt they could prove that it's illegal, it would have been protested by now. I'm not sure but maybe there is more doubt than conviction of the facts and that is why it's never been protested. This is just my opinion.

Now I must sign off. I have truly used up more time on this it is worthy of.

Later,
Jimmy

[Wren]

Jim,

In post #29 of this thread I posted a picture of a Radon that lacked the required diagonal brace to protect the driver's legs. I also posted the relevant portions of the 2012 GCR that are violated by the missing brace.

Is that picture incorrect? I know that Nathan was warned about the missing brace all the way back in 2010, but that picture is much more current than that. I hope that I am wrong about this one, do you have a picture to prove me wrong?

All of the other threads have been filled with very specific allegations against the legality of the Radon, quotes from Nathan where he points out the illegal parts of his own car, and I even did diagrams in them. Lack of specificity is not the problem. You would have to be willfully ignoring what was posted here to claim that there have not been specific allegations made. Rehashing those points will accomplish nothing except getting this thread locked. I would love nothing more than deep dive into the Radon's legality, but this is not the thread for it. If Doug says it is ok to start another thread, then we can do it. Otherwise, you and I are hijacking this thread and we should take it to PM.

*Please* don't turn this into another direct Radon is illegal pissing match or you *know* what Doug will be forced to do to this thread. this thread is about lawsuits driving rules and that shouldnt be how the process works. Keep this one open or not flat out deleted so people can get the word out and write the CRB and the BoD.

You are correct.

This thread is about whether or not the SCCA members want someone to be able to build a car that is not legal to any existing rules and then use their investor's deep pockets to finance a lawsuit to have the rules changed to make their car legal or if people think that constructors should have to build their cars to the existing rules.

No matter what you think, send your letters to the CRB. They don't have to be long, just a few sentences into the box on the CRB website will be enough.

www.crbscca.com

Now I have to head off to a meeting, more rules discussion when I get back.

[jimh3063]

Wren:
I think you're a bright guy who knows the rules. What I don't think is you've actually seen a car up close enough to deem anything legal or illegal. Just protest one and get it over with. Let's just put it to bed once and for all.

Jimmy

[Jnovak]

Jim is right in that the Radon has never been protested

Someone needs to make this happen. It has been posted in many areas where members of ApexSpeed have thought that the car is illegal. Now I am very impressed with the creativity of the Radon design, but that said, if I was a competitor in the class I would have protested the car a long time ago simply to clear this up. Someone in the FC community needs to protest the Radon and get this done with. As I said I am impressed with the creative design of the car but I do think it is not legal in several areas.

The next time a Radon is at an SCCA race it needs to be protested for very specific items. Quit complaining and put up or shut up.

[Wren]

Wren:
I think you're a bright guy who knows the rules. What I don't think is you've actually seen a car up close enough to deem anything legal or illegal. Just protest one and get it over with. Let's just put it to bed once and for all.

Jimmy

I gave you a picture and a GCR reference. I guess there's no tube there? That's a shame.

Jim is right in that the Radon has never been protested

Someone needs to make this happen. It has been posted in many areas where members of ApexSpeed have thought that the car is illegal. Now I am very impressed with the creativity of the Radon design, but that said, if I was a competitor in the class I would have protested the car a long time ago simply to clear this up. Someone in the FC community needs to protest the Radon and get this done with. As I said I am impressed with the creative design of the car but I do think it is not legal in several areas.

The next time a Radon is at an SCCA race it needs to be protested for very specific items. Quit complaining and put up or shut up.

Jay, I think it would be great if someone would do it, but someone would have to be crazy to do it. The Radon guys are clearly willing to file a lawsuit just to punish people they don't like. I wouldn't be willing to touch it. They have sufficient resources to try to get their way or to hurt anyone they don't like. I think that makes it all the more important that people send their letters.

When I did my compliance review, I was not allowed to ask questions about the Radon so I asked a very general questions that I believe apply to the Radon or created my own solidworks models so that I had to use no pictures of their car. Questions like, does non-ferrous include carbon fiber. It was certainly enough to satisfy my curiosity about the Radon. In the absence of even a single shred of evidence that their car was legal to the 2012 rules, I am comfortable speaking in absolutes regarding the legality of the car. I don't think anyone has even tried to claim that the question wouldn't apply to the Radon.

But, if anyone out there is brave enough to protest the Radon, all of the necessary information is on this forum. The GCR also now allows for someone to protest the Radon specifically. I even sent a pdf of my compliance review to anyone who asked for it.



Jim,

Any interest on your part in sending in a compliance review on your car?

[jimh3063]

Wren:
Go look at the car. We all have the review. Protest the car and you will it will be shown ASAP. What person was punished. Someone felt that they were wronged and felt like they had enough evidence to prove it. How is that punishing someone?

I have truly spent way more time on this than is justified.
I had asked to put the rule text from the GCR in the item where you felt it was illegal. I looked at the gcr where you listed it and didn't see the same thing you did.
Please put up a CURRENT photo of a problem, cut and paste the text from the gcr (not your interpretation) and explain why it is illegal. I'm sure that you can do that. You eat the GCR for breakfast.

Jimmy

[alangbaker]

Alan, Wren knows who the two crb members are. Ask him.

I asked you. You appear to have chosen not to answer, so I guess I'll draw my own conclusions about why.

As much as I would like to see it, I would never hold Reid to eating Wrens socks.
Wren, Reid, Kevin, Alan, etc, I won't publish the doc I have because when I bought the car I was asked not to unless I was protested. I am a man of my word. I was never asked not to show it to anyone just not post it. That's why I won't post it. I hope you can appreciate that. If you want, go look at any car. We all have the doc for what was self protested and deemed legal. I am referring to self protest of the body panels. Anyone is welcome look at the car, and the doc you can see the names of the people who wrote it and voted on it. You can ask them about their choices. I was not in the room nor was I privy to any of the decision making process. I just was given the doc from the self protests when the car was being developed in case I was protested.

So if it is a self protest of the body panels, then would you agree that it is in no way a blanket statement that the car is legal?

BTW, what are the names of those people? Or is that another one of those things you were asked not to reveal?

Lets look at this a different way if we may. Please post a picture and the section of the GCR on a specific part of the car that is illegal and tell us why. Please be very specific and show a picture, the gcr rule it violates and how it violates it. Specificity of what makes a radon illegal seems to be like kryptonite around here.

Last time I checked, the Radon used carbon fibre for suspension brackets--arguing that "non-ferrous" included that material, but my understanding is that the club has ruled that as used in the GCR, "non-ferrous" refers only to metals.

I will say that my car, like most formula cars is a kit. You can either assemble it yourself or pay someone else to. I choose to pay Glen Phillips to assemble mine. We were all given the parts to assemble our car to meet the GCR in 2012. My car itself is legal to those rules. I am too tall to meet the broomstick rule so a part was added to my role hoop to make me in my car meet the broomstick rule. That is the only part of the car I know for sure was not legal when I am in it. It is me in the car not the car. Fabio can sit in the first car and meet the broomstick rule. I just wanted to add that because comments have been made about the cars not meeting the broomstick rule. It is the driver in the car that has to meet it not the car itself as a shorter person could pass in ALL radons. Radon 6 and 7 have taller hoops.

I don't know why any of that is relevant to the issues here...

I am sure I'm not telling anyone here that maybe a certain person could have spoken to some of the other people who manufacture cars with a bit more respect and may come off as arrogant. I would agree with that statement. I would say that being arrogant does not make your car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.

I'm sure a certain person could have made an attempt to come more into the fold of the class and get more involved in a positive way in the class. That fact that it didn't happen but it doesn't make the car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.

Sueing the SCCA may piss a lot of people off, but it doesn't make his car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.

I am going to quote one of the people on the crb who came and looked at my car at Sebring "he is pushing the envelope but the car is legal" per the doc he reviewed after looking at Bob W and my car at Sebring. Pushing the envelope doesn't make your car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.

Again: who was that person?

There are a lot of opinions running around this board. Most are just that. Come look at the car and review the doc. You will see the car is what I've said. The bodywork seems to be the biggest bone of contention. It was reviewed during a self protest and deemed legal once he modified it as he was told to. Again I need to keep saying this, the car has to be legal by the 2012 rules. The rules were changed in 2013 with the very specific intent to make it illegal. Hats off to a job well done. It does not meet the 2013 rules but is grandfathered in as we all know.

Again, look at the car and doc. Make your own decision. If you're not near the Northeast of South Fla where all the Radon's reside, maybe you can come to one of the pro races and take a peek. As far as input to the new rules submissions, I would ask that you remove the radon from the equation. Do the proposed mods make the cars better and safer. Do the proposed rule mods further the progression of the class. Someone felt that in 2012 changing the rules did. 20 years of the exact same rules needed modifications for some reason. I'm not really sure why that was the case but I am only one person. Just take the people and personalities out and vote on the proposed rule changes based on the merits or lack thereof.

Vote on the Radon with your wallet. The 7 cars that are already built are grandfathered in. They have been running for a few years at many SCCA events. There were two at Sebring and Moroso at the beginning of January Majors for all to see and protest. No one did. They've been to enough SCCA events if someone truly felt they could prove that it's illegal, it would have been protested by now. I'm not sure but maybe there is more doubt than conviction of the facts and that is why it's never been protested. This is just my opinion.

Now I must sign off. I have truly used up more time on this it is worthy of.

Jim: That's twice now you've told us that this is using up more of your time than it is worth. But here you are.

You chose to enter this thread, and I'm asking very reasonable questions which you are now choosing not to answer except with vagaries at best. I find that odd. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

[reidhazelton]

I feel really bad for whatever volunteer tech inspector gets brought into this. Poor guy will get sued.

[Jnovak]

Wren, the protest procedure is well defined and very doable. The key element is that you cannot go on a fishing expedition but must be very specific in each and every element of the protest.

I have been protested 4 times and understand the deal pretty well. Protests are, and should be, a normal part of the business of racing, especially if you build cars to the absolute limits of the rules or like to interpret things differently than what might be considered the norm.

I also think that every designer of race cars is obligated to design cars that take advantage of every part of the written rules, otherwise you are not doing your job as a designer. However if you are doing many things outside the box you MUST EXPECT that you will be protested and you must be wiling to accept the consequences of your design decisions if they are deemed illegal.

If I had an FC car I would make sure that I was an entrant and at a race where a Radon was competing and I would definitely be part of a protest if for no other reason than to make sure that there is clarity in the application and understanding of the FC rules. Of course any ruling would go to the appeal process but that is expected and totally normal.

Protests are a normal process of racing and both sides should be ready at any time to be part of the process. As an example, every race I went to a race with our reversed engined RaKaVon F500, I went with all of my documentation that defined why I thought that the car was legal under the rules as written. When we were finally protested at the Runoffs in 2005 we won the protest because we were ready for the protest.

On another note, just because I think that there are some elements of the Radon that are not legal, this does not mean that I am right.

[alangbaker]

Alan

Jimmy, for the record:

I am no one's "sock".

[jimh3063]

Wren:
I will submit you're the GCR guru but I can't seem to find the word diagonal in this gcr referring to the brace in the section you quoted and could not even find the second one. What am I missing.


9.1.1.D.7.a
D.7. Chassis/Frame
Formula Ford 1986 construction requirements as of January 1,
1986 as revised January 1, 2010. All new Formula Ford cars are
to be built to these specifications covered in D.6 and D.7. (Also
required for Formula Continental.)
a. The chassis shall be of steel space-frame construction. Forward facing
braces that protecting the driver’s legs and feet shall extend
from the front roll hoop to the front bulkhead (The front bulkhead
is defined as the transverse section of the frame immediately ahead
of the pedals and drivers feet.) The soles of the driver’s feet shall
not extend beyond the front edge of the wheel rims (in normal
position; (i.e., pedals not depressed) and shall remain behind the
front bulkhead. The lower main frame rails shall be a minimum
of 25 centimeters (9.84 inches) apart (inside dimension) from the
front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop. Monocoque-type structures are
prohibited.
A stress bearing floor pan constructed from a minimum of .060 inch
heat treated aluminum sheet or 18 gauge steel sheet is required. At
a minimum, it shall extend from the front bulkhead to the rear roll
hoop bulkhead. Its curvature shall not exceed one inch. The floor
pan may be constructed in multiple sections.
The front bulkhead, forward roll hoop (dash hoop) bulkhead and
main hoop bulkhead may also utilize stress-bearing panels. No
other stress-bearing panels are allowed.
Stress-Bearing Panel Definition: Any sheet material that is attached
to the frame by welding, bonding, riveting, threaded fasteners, or
any combination thereof, the centers of which are located closer
than 6 inches. The distance between fasteners is measured on the
surface of the panels. No materials other than aluminum or sheet
steel are allowed for use as stress-bearing panels. Stabilized materials
(honeycomb) are not permitted as stress-bearing panels.

9.4.5.c.2 Cannot find.

Where is the word diagonal concerning front brace. I quote "The chassis shall be of steel space-frame construction. Forward facing
braces that protecting the driver’s legs and feet shall extend
from the front roll hoop to the front bulkhead (The front bulkhead
is defined as the transverse section of the frame immediately ahead
of the pedals and drivers feet.)"

I do not see the word diagonal anywhere? If you are going to quote the GCR, please include the text for me to refer too. Please do not include your interpretation but the actual text.

My car complies with this rule. Please come and look.
Jimmy

[Wren]

I asked you. You appear to have chosen not to answer, so I guess I'll draw my own conclusions about why.

Alan, I don't think it's worth it. Too much risk of getting the thread locked.

I feel really bad for whatever volunteer tech inspector gets brought into this. Poor guy will get sued.

No kidding.

What person was punished. Someone felt that they were wronged and felt like they had enough evidence to prove it. How is that punishing someone?

They sued a guy and their entire claim against him was that he went to dinner with some people. I'm pretty sure that I don't have insurance to cover whatever imaginative lawsuit I could end up facing.

I would be willing to work with you to develop something that we could both agree on that you could send in.

Wren, the protest procedure is well defined and very doable. The key element is that you cannot go on a fishing expedition but must be very specific in each and every element of the protest.

Agreed. My point is just that I am not brave enough to do it.

Protests are, and should be, a normal part of the business of racing, especially if you build cars to the absolute limits of the rules or like to interpret things differently than what might be considered the norm.

There is a ton of truth in this. When we were protested at the 2010 runoffs, I got pretty upset about it. I was wrong. While I believed that the car was legal as run, the people who filed the protest were well within their rights to file the protest. I was wrong to get upset.

I also think that every designer of race cars is obligated to design cars that take advantage of every part of the written rules, otherwise you are not doing your job as a designer. However if you are doing many things outside the box you MUST EXPECT that you will be protested and you must be wiling to accept the consequences of your design decisions if they are deemed illegal.

So much truth here. The appeal to me of classes like FF, FC, and FB is the work that goes in to trying to make a compliant car to the limits of the rules and to take every advantage that the rules allow. That is the reason that I have spent so much time studying the GCR and what has made arguing about the Radon so appealing. Time spent studying the rules in the GCR is time well spent.
There is no appeal to me for a class with spec lines and competition adjustments. Innovation and hard work will be rewarded with weight or a restrictor to be brought back to the lowest common denominator. Where's the reward for hard work in that? Can we just re-homologate with a different chassis weight and restrictor size to go back to the base rules for the class?

You are also correct about what the acceptable response for losing a protest is. Going back to the 2010 runoffs, we had a straight edge and a skill saw just in case we lost any protest regarding the bodywork. Fortunately, we did not lose the protest. I would point to your response to your F500 situation as the correct and classy way to deal with such a situation.

If I had an FC car I would make sure that I was an entrant and at a race where a Radon was competing and I would definitely be part of a protest if for no other reason than to make sure that there is clarity in the application and understanding of the FC rules. Of course any ruling would go to the appeal process but that is expected and totally normal.

Under the new process you don't have to go to a race to protest a car. Anyone can protest another car through the compliance review process. Risking a lawsuit to win an internet pissing match or satisfy my curiosity is too skewed of a risk/reward scenario. I satisfied my curiosity with my compliance review.

On another note, just because I think that there are some elements of the Radon that are not legal, this does not mean that I am right.

Same here. I've been wrong before and I'm sure I will be wrong again. I really am open minded to the whole thing, but I would like to see evidence.

My car complies with this rule. Please come and look.
Jimmy

Answered in PM. This thread is about the new rules. Maybe Doug wants to let us have another Radon compliance thread?

Let's keep trying to figure out when I can come and look.

[jimh3063]

Wren:
I agree this is about the new rules. I think we should respect the board and take this to another thread if you so desire. My car is grandfathered in and that is what I am concerned about. I will respond to things that are related to that. I again would ask that you include a picture of the problem area on the car, the QUOTED gcr not your interpretation of it, and what is wrong. As I pointed out in the prior post, you quoted a portion of the gcr stating it said diagonal bar. It does not say that. I feel like I now need to go back and review every quote you made to check for accuracy. The first one I check was misquoted. If your going to state that the GCR states something. I would again ask the you cut and paste and not put you're interpretation of what it says,

Thanks
Jimmy

[Wren]

Wren:
I agree this is about the new rules. I think we should respect the board and take this to another thread if you so desire. My car is grandfathered in and that is what I am concerned about. I will respond to things that are related to that. I again would ask that you include a picture of the problem area on the car, the QUOTED gcr not your interpretation of it, and what is wrong. As I pointed out in the prior post, you quoted a portion of the gcr stating it said diagonal bar. It does not say that. I feel like I now need to go back and review every quote you made to check for accuracy. The first one I check was misquoted. If your going to state that the GCR states something. I would again ask the you cut and paste and not put you're interpretation of what it says,

Thanks
Jimmy

Sigh. I guess I will get sucked in, but maybe I can keep it brief and make a larger point.

Yes, it is my belief that the language that I reference in the GCR requires a diagonal brace as that is the only way to comply with the rules. I did not misquote the GCR. I did not quote the GCR at all, I referenced it. It is my opinion that a brace must be between the outside of the car and the driver's legs to protect them. I can't imagine any other way that a tube could protect the driver's legs. But, the COA could see it differently.

The important point that I would like to make from this is that anything I post, say, or email someone, unless directly supported by a compliance review is nothing but my opinion. That is not unique to me. Anything said by you, me, Nathan, an FSRAC member, a BOD member, or a CRB member cannot be anything but their personal opinion. Only the COA may make a ruling of compliant or non-compliant.

While I am unwilling to submit a compliance review, I would be willing to offer you any help I could if you wanted to submit a compliance review for your car. I believe that a compliance review on this subject would only require two sentences and one photograph/diagram.

[Jnovak]

Wren, the problem with a compliance review, which I have used several times, is that it applies only to the absolute specifics of the question you are asking about. You can phrase the question specifically enough to define exactly what you are looking to understand the legality of.

I suggest that if you think that there is a very specific item on a specific car that is not legal that you request a very carefully worded compliance review about that specific item and then later protest the car in question using the compliance review as evidence in the protest process.

I suspect that you have thought of this.

[jimh3063]

Jay:
I agree that if you had actually seen the car up close and were able to be very specific, you could do exactly just what you proposed. The issue here is Wren has NEVER seen a Radon up close by his own admission. He can't really tell you the specifics on the car, hence have anywhere near enough information to do a compliance review.

Jimmy

[S Lathrop]

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.

CC

Chris;

Prior to the meeting where we thrashed out the 1986 rules for FF construction, I had a conversation with one of the principals of Swift. He was advocating that we update our rules to allow for more modern construction techniques in FF. At the time David Bruns had the DB1, DB2, and DB3 on the tracks. In that meeting we thought we had written the rules well enough to restrict the frame construction to tube frames, only. DB was not advocating such a change.

One question was raised on ApexSpeed was where did the 6 inch rule came from. It was David Brun's idea. The consensus was that at 6 inch centers, any panel would not be very effective. Time seems to have proven us wrong. Or at least one designer has set out to prove the "wisdom of the time" wrong.

Chris you have asserted that tube frames construction has been "unchanged for the last 20 years or so". By 1980 I had run "installation tests" on 2 of my designs, one a tube frame FF and a aluminum monocoque FSV. Using the FF as a standard of 100, the FSV was 400. A Swift 08 FA was 1400 by comparison (my testing of the chassis). The new Citation frames being produced for 2014 season are approaching 1000. I don't think this is 20 year old technology. I would also remind you that we were doing composites in 1986.

I will also point out that most of the 1986 advanced construction designs are not race worthy today. That is not true for the tube frame cars of the day and of those that came the decades before.

The weakness of all the "modern design techniques" is their limited capacity to deal with point loading, and the difficulty of maintaining joint integrity, especially between dissimilar materials. Rivet joints fail over time and bonded joints delaminate. Composites delaminate as well. Tube frame construction results in a single unit of compatible materials. This is why the top IRL teams replace the tubs on a regular basis. By comparison, tube frames are easily repaired when necessary.

The limitations of composite construction has safety implications as well. Notice that all the cars use steel tubing for roll hoops.

Time will tell whether the Radon is a pioneering design or just an other approach to the challenges of designing a competitive Formula Continental.

Chris: time will also tell whether you are advocating for the future or not. For now the Radon is a fact. Time will tell whether it is the future.

At the end of the 2012 F2000 series I felt that I had been defeated about as bad as one could be. What is hitting the track this spring is the result of that whipping and the relentless work of all the people involved with the Citation cars. The Citation frame is almost 30% stiffer than it was at the end of 2012, existing and new cars.

[Parker]

Very interesting proposed rules in that preliminary minutes document.

I haven't read the whole section in the GCR, but what do you think about this...

Seems like a guy could make a composite or metal monocoque chassis and then put some light "frame rails" outside of this structure. The suspension mounting brackets could be fastened to "frame" very lightly and to the "interior panels" aka monocoque in a manner capable of handling the real racing loads. This way the car can roll without interior panels and would not be subject to spec. line weight penalties because the interior panels would not be attached to the frame. Then do or don't put super light weight exterior panels over everything.

What I don't get is the sentence about excemption for panels around the engine, oil tank, bell housing, and gearbox. "The chassis must be capable of rolling without any such frame exterior panels installed. The engine, bell housing/oil tank and gearbox are exempt from this limitation."

Can someone tell me why this is there?

Also, beware those highly stressed instrument panels! They're good for a second or two.

[reidhazelton]

I haven't read the whole section in the GCR, but what do you think about this...

Seems like a guy could make a composite or metal monocoque chassis and then put some light "frame rails" outside of this structure. The suspension mounting brackets could be fastened to "frame" very lightly and to the "interior panels" aka monocoque in a manner capable of handling the real racing loads. This way the car can roll without interior panels and would not be subject to spec. line weight penalties because the interior panels would not be attached to the frame. Then do or don't put super light weight exterior panels over everything.

Hey Parker-

I think you see the main rub within those rules. It opens the door for monocoque chassis and is a HUGE departure from what the rules have been since the inception of FF/FC. Also, it unmarries the two classes that have been traditionally able to share a common chassis. Steve Lathrop's description in a previous post about the positives of tube frames in this level of racing is spot on. Allowing monocoques would have many substantial drawbacks; cost, repair, longevity.

[butch deer]

Why can't these cars simply rehomolagate as FS and just run regionals?

[reidhazelton]

Why can't these cars simply rehomolagate as FS and just run regionals?

Logic has no place here Butch.

Happy Birthday by the way!!!

[Jnovak]

The existing Radons are now an FC spec line car and can race anywhere in the SCCA. The rub with that is that if you change anything you must then make the car legal to current FC rules.

I think I stated this correctly.

[reidhazelton]

The existing Radons are now an FC spec line car and can race anywhere in the SCCA. The rub with that is that if you change anything you must then make the car legal to current FC rules.

I think I stated this correctly.

I think they also have to be legal to the 2012 GCR, as they were delivered, yes?

[Jnovak]

I think they also have to be legal to the 2012 GCR, as they were delivered, yes?

I think that the spec line indicates that they are legal as delivered. My mind cannot wrap itself around the wording.

I think the club has made those 7 (??) legal "as delivered". Any other thoughts on this.

[reidhazelton]

Cars bearing the following homologation numbers:
110056, 110057, 110058, 110059, 110060,
110061, and 110062 must comply with 2012 GCR
FC rules, must be “as delivered” from the manufacturer
and must meet current safety and weight requirements.
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.

To me, this does not say that it is legal. My interpretation is that it can be raced under the 2012 GCR but must still be legal under that GCR. Which, depending who you ask, it is not legal as delivered under the 2012 GCR. Some say it is, some say it isn't. To which, the protest question arises.

My feeling is that if they were legal to the 2012 rules, then this whole lawsuit thing would be pointless as they can show up and race. I know that is an assumption, but that is my take until one is protested. Also, Wren's compliance review showed a few aspects were not legal, like the meaning of non-ferrous.

[Daryl DeArman]

I think it is a bad precedent to ask folks outside of a class for their input.

If the FC rules weren't changed in 2013, this wouldn't even be an issue. Perhaps the FC rules should just be changed back to what they were in 2012.

[Jnovak]

Cars bearing the following homologation numbers:
110056, 110057, 110058, 110059, 110060,
110061, and 110062 must comply with 2012 GCR
FC rules, must be “as delivered” from the manufacturer
and must meet current safety and weight requirements.
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.

To me, this does not say that it is legal. It says to me that it can be raced under the 2012 GCR but must still be legal under that GCR. Which, depending who you ask, it is not legal as delivered under the 2012 GCR. Some say it is, some say it isn't. To which, the protest question arises.

My feeling is that if they were legal to the 2012 rules, then this whole lawsuit thing would be pointless as they can show up and race. I know that is an assumption, but that is my take until one is protested. Also, Wren's compliance review showed a few aspects were not legal, like the meaning of non-ferrous.

You are correct Reid. It does not say they are legal, it states that they can race but must be legal to the 2012 rules. This simply means that they are subject to protests just like any other car but that they must be legal wrt 2012 rules.

I do not agree that Wren's compliance review necessarily indicates that the Radons are illegal. The rules of the SCCA require that a specific Radon must be protested on a specific item or specific items. If one of the items protested was/is EXACTLY as presented in Wren's compliance review, then Wren's compliance review might be used as evidence in the protest.

Another point is that compliance reviews are only binding for the calendar year of the compliance review. For instance if a compliance review was completed on March 1st 2013, then that compliance review is only effective to December 31, 2013. So any compliance review that Wren may have made a couple of years ago is no longer valid for 2014.

I am not stating that Wren or his compliance review is not right, I am simply stating the facts as related to the compliance review process. As I said, I have been protested 4 times (and won each time) and I have also used the compliance review process several times. You must understand the process before you can use the process to your benefit.

[Camadella]

I think, to paraphrase the rule, it says, "We don't mind if people race those cars that you made already. We just don't want you to be in the business of making any more of them."

[jimh3063]

Last time I checked, being deemed illegal by Wren doesn't really make it illegal.
I'm pretty sure that is not in the GCR but is true. At least if the Anti Radon crew is going to say something is illegal, you should pick a spokesperson who has actually seen the car up close, and not posting old pictures to make a points that are not relevant, or quoting non existent gcr rules.

FYI, check out the new F4 FIA rules on intrusion protection. I think you'll find that modern small bore Formula cars in our class are heading the away from the FC that we think is current. We are a vintage class that doesn't want to admit it is a vintage class. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Jimmy

[Wren]

Parker,

It may well say what you have proposed. The rules are so vague and poorly written that I don't think anyone is really sure. Please write your letters in if you think these vague rules that make a lot of currently legal cars non-compliant are a bad idea.

I think, to paraphrase the rule, it says, "We don't mind if people race those cars that you made already. We just don't want you to be in the business of making any more of them."

Read again. They say, "these 7 people got scammed and every really hates to see that. Maybe we should let them run anyways." At least that is what I see.

I am 100% sure that the 2013 rules make it easier for a Radon to be brought into compliance than the 2012 rules do.

You claimed that the SCCA has publicly declared the Radon legal, are we ever going to get a link or some proof?

Last time I checked, being deemed illegal by Wren doesn't really make it illegal.

Of course. I have made that point constantly. The only people who can rule something legal or illegal is the COA. Even Nathan has posted on this forum that opinions from people like Dave Gomberg are nothing but one SCCA member's opinion and not a meaningful opinion that affects legality.

I have put out there what the COA has said regarding non-ferrous, double roll hoop construction, and diffuser design. I have used drawings from Nathan, things that Nathan posted on here and pictures of the car to back up my points. You only respond with the ad hominem that I have not closely inspected the car. You never try to present a counterargument. Any more discussion of the legality of the Radon is pointless until you want to bring a fact to the argument.

Those mythical rulings from the COA that you have, had the COA seen the car when they gave them? Does their ruling lose meaning because they only used diagrams and Nathan's words and didn't see the car? Of course not.

At least if the Anti Radon crew is going to say something is illegal, you should pick a spokesperson who has actually seen the car up close, and not posting old pictures to make a points that are not relevant, or quoting non existent gcr rules.

If I am using old pictures that are irrelevant then you should post some pictures that are up to date and relevant and an explanation on why I am wrong. It would seriously damage my credibility and bring people to your side. I've never quoted non-existent GCR rules. I've given GCR rules and what I believe they mean. You offered no argument but that I haven't seen the car. You never argue that the pictures are wrong, you just try to change the subject to something that doesn't matter.

Lastly, there is no anti-Radon crew.


Whether you think that the use of carbon is good for the class or not, write your letters.

If you think a manufacturer should be able to strong-arm rules with a lawsuit or not, write your letters.

I personally don't think the GCR is going to mean a whole lot if the rules are changed to whatever the person with the most resources wants. Write your letters.

www.crbscca.com

[nulrich]

One question was raised on ApexSpeed was where did the 6 inch rule came from. It was David Brun's idea. The consensus was that at 6 inch centers, any panel would not be very effective. Time seems to have proven us wrong. Or at least one designer has set out to prove the "wisdom of the time" wrong.

Hi Steve. I haven't set out to prove anyone wrong, I just used a different approach. I tried three completely different approaches to the Radon chassis design. The first was a conventional tube frame with many diagonal tubes, the second a tube frame with composite panels attached, the third a tube frame with aluminum panels attached. I designed each to the same weight target. The tube frame with aluminum panels mounted on six-inch centers was the stiffest. They were all very very close. Six inch spacing is about perfect if you want to encourage design creativity.

We could easily replace the composite panels with aluminum ones. I designed such panels and obtained quotes when the 2013 rules made the current design illegal. They would make the frame slightly stiffer than the current design. Absolutely legal under any version of the FC rules. They provide about 1/12 as much protection to the driver. Not a compromise I'm willing to make.

The weakness of all the "modern design techniques" is their limited capacity to deal with point loading, and the difficulty of maintaining joint integrity, especially between dissimilar materials. Rivet joints fail over time and bonded joints delaminate.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this photo shows a Citation frame with a riveted and bonded aluminum floor? Nothing wrong with that. The Rn.10 has a 16 gauge 4130 steel floor welded directly to the frame. Just a different approach, both perfectly valid.

Composites delaminate as well. Tube frame construction results in a single unit of compatible materials.

Yes, until you bolt, rivet, bond or otherwise attach something to it. The composite panels on the Rn.10 are bolted to the frame with fasteners. We've checked the integrity of those joints regularly on all the cars, and they have maintained installation torque perfectly. We have yet to see a single failure.

This is why the top IRL teams replace the tubs on a regular basis.

That may have once been true. Composites have come a long way, they are now making airliners (like the Boeing 787) with design lives of 100,000 hours over 30 years. F1 monocoques often last a full season, including testing, if they aren't damaged in a crash. That represents about 20 years worth of use for the average Club racer.

By comparison, tube frames are easily repaired when necessary.

Having done both, I can say that unbolting and replacing a composite side panel (which takes just a few minutes) is a lot easier than cutting out, straightening and welding in new tubes. The composite panels in the Rn.10 have no foam or honeycomb core, so repairing them is easy. Haven't damaged one yet, but at $800 each it would probably be easier to just replace it.

The limitations of composite construction has safety implications as well. Notice that all the cars use steel tubing for roll hoops.

That hasn't been true for many years except for IndyCar. All other higher level classes with composite chassis use composite roll structures. They are specifically designed so the top 50 to 100 mm crushes on impact, absorbing energy, and are safer than steel roll hoops. That said, obviously the Radon roll hoop is steel. And, the tube frame of the Radon meets the "alternate" roll cage requirements, which are about three to five times more stringent than the SCCA minimum, without any composite panels installed.

Time will tell whether the Radon is a pioneering design or just an other approach to the challenges of designing a competitive Formula Continental.

I completely agree. The Rn.10 is different, and I believe a lot safer, but FC is still about team and driver more than chassis. Which is how it should be.

By the way, for anyone interested in an outsider's view, there are a couple of good articles in RaceTech magazine that reference the Rn.10. They are written by Peter Elleray, who was working in F1 when composite structures were first introduced and who designed the Bentley that won Le Mans in 2003, the Audi R8C, and the Radical SR9. He learned about the Radon through ApexSpeed and told me he waded through all the threads before contacting me (poor guy!). The first article talks about chassis construction in general and can be found here. The second is about the Rn.10 specifically and can be found here.

Nathan

[nulrich]

I haven't read the whole section in the GCR, but what do you think about this...

Seems like a guy could make a composite or metal monocoque chassis and then put some light "frame rails" outside of this structure. The suspension mounting brackets could be fastened to "frame" very lightly and to the "interior panels" aka monocoque in a manner capable of handling the real racing loads. This way the car can roll without interior panels and would not be subject to spec. line weight penalties because the interior panels would not be attached to the frame. Then do or don't put super light weight exterior panels over everything.

Hi Parker. That wouldn't work. There is a whole additional section of the GCR spelling out the requirements for the roll cage structure for formula cars. Once you've satisfied those requirements, added the tubes required for FF/FC, a steel or aluminum floor, brackets for mounting the suspension, you have a very substantial (and heavy) structure. Remember, one additional limitation in the proposed rules clarification is that suspension components can't be mounted to any composite panels, even through brackets, so you'd somehow have to feed the loads first into the steel tube frame, then back out to composite "monocoque." The limit on fastener spacing of six inches and fastener diameter of 1/4 inch max means you'd have this massive structure to spread the suspension loads to the tube frame and then back to the "monocoque."

And then, of course, you can't actually have a monocoque in the traditional sense, since you are only allowed panels.

You'd end up with a heavier structure for the same stiffness. And it would also be bulkier, so you'd suffer aerodynamically. Not to mention more expensive and really hard to work on.

What I don't get is the sentence about excemption for panels around the engine, oil tank, bell housing, and gearbox. "The chassis must be capable of rolling without any such frame exterior panels installed. The engine, bell housing/oil tank and gearbox are exempt from this limitation."

Can someone tell me why this is there?

I can speculate. Many cars use stressed skin panels for the structure around the engine, for the bell housing, or to support the gearbox. Suspension components are often attached to these structures, so the car won't roll with them removed. Hence the exemption for these panels.

Nathan

[Swift17]

For those interested in FF .............

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... .

(underlining added)

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. .

This rule would appear to make EVERY db-1, db-3, db-3 '89 'ers and db-6 illegal, together with other chassis [Citations -some van diemans as well] -- how nice !

- letter sent, please send yours click the link below have your scca number w/ pen to write your letter # - it is sent immediately upon submission

www.crbscca.com

Thank You

EJ