I think Jay is correct. So how do we propose an ad hoc committee of actual builders of tube frame race cars? Second time I agreed with Jay this week. I must be getting old
I think Jay is correct. So how do we propose an ad hoc committee of actual builders of tube frame race cars? Second time I agreed with Jay this week. I must be getting old
A very sad state of affairs.Originally Posted by steve zemke
Send a letter to the crb.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
How do you form a committee of member/builders without giving off the appearance of a conflict of interest? Isn't it prudent to avoid such appearance given the pending legal matters?
The opposition to the pro rules or 2012 Club rules is what exactly?
Tom, Have you ever heard Jimmy speak? That's not a Pennsylvania accent...
"I love the smell of race fuel in the morning. It smells like victory!"
Barry Wilcock
Pit Crew: Tumenas Motorsports/Houndspeed, Fat Boy Racing
More than 15 posts per day about this for over a week and then nothing for almost 24 hours after asking:
That silence speaks volumes to anybody paying attention.
Some people were put on the sidelines don't forget...
Steve Bamford
I wasn't aware there were multiple.
When they get off of their timeout, maybe we'll find out exactly what their opposition (if any) would be to reverting back to the 2012 Club rules or adopting the Pro series rules.
Read through these threads (again?) - it will give you some more background:
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57629
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54928
Last edited by DaveW; 01.23.14 at 10:17 AM. Reason: added (again?)
Dave Weitzenhof
I have no problem with continuing to use the 2012 rules.
Taking a rule set or standard from a different racing community and expecting to apply it to our community is absurd. F4, like many of the FIA classes, was created from a clean sheet of paper with no regard to how the cars will mesh with several thousand cars currently in use. Comparing or applying those standards directly to our formula classes will not work.
Europe and North America have different approaches and standards to many, many things. Just a few examples ... the way they heat the water in their homes, to the way they build their houses, their fuel use, their recycling, their power generation, etc. That our style of developing racing formula car classes is different, is no surprise.
We all want safer cars with better side protection. That needs to be done within the current rule set, or specific standards need to be developed that we can evolve our rules to. Trying to make hybrid cars legal today, or next month, is doing our community no more good than people trying to sell us illegal hybrid cars, then suing us because they're illegal.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
So you are suggesting that Radon will "hurt anyone" that protests their car? How exactly would they do that? Is there a Radon mafia that breaks your knees after a protest occurs? Didn't Radon protest themselves or something like that? Why would they go after someone for doing the same?
What is made illegal on which existing cars? Do you have any guesses as to the effort needed to comply? 15 minutes and $10? A $5k chassis teardown?
-Robert
I think by "hurt", he already laid out what he meant specifically: "lawsuit".
It would seem to be that you're erecting something of a strawman here.
Robert, based on your previous post claiming you helped design the aero on the Radon I am very sure you fully understand what "hurt anyone" means. You are close enough to all of this to understand what is implied. Here is actually your own words in a previous post "I designed the aerodynamics of the car, and also the bodywork shape/styling. I do not hold a stake in Radon however".
I am not even sure why you are posting these questions as you clearly already know the answers.
Steve Bamford
Because 100's if not 1,000s of legal cars, should not have to change to accommodate an illegal car because of a lawsuit. If the car had been made legally in the first place, that "$5k teardown" would not exist.
Last edited by reidhazelton; 01.24.14 at 10:08 PM.
The FIA is not "a different racing community." It is the International Automobile Federation, and SCCA (through ACCUS) is a member. The FIA spends millions of dollars and thousands of man hours every year to study and improve motorsports safety. The SCCA, as far as I know, spends nothing.
For that reason, the SCCA, and most racing organizations all over the world, adopt many FIA safety standards. Everything from safety harnesses to HANS devices to fire extinguishers to fuel cells are specifically required to meet certain FIA standards in the GCR.
The FIA side panel standard referenced earlier is not a Formula 4 regulation. It's an FIA standard for side panel protection on tube frame race cars of many types (the Formula 4 regulations do reference the standard but go even further). A previous version of the FIA standard is referenced in the 2012 and 2013 FF/FC rules.
I've not heard anyone suggest that cars be required to meet the latest FIA standards, just that no one should be prevented from using an improved level of side protection. I believe all of us are in favor of that.
Let me state this unequivocally. No Radon has ever been protested. No decision of the CoA has found any feature of the Radon illegal (John LaRue's creative torturing of the GCR in Wren's self-protest turns out to not apply to production Radons...as they would have known had they actually looked at one of the cars). I have never heard any individual who has actually inspected a Radon claim it was illegal. None of the people claiming the Radon is illegal (including yourself) has ever actually seen a car as far as I know.We all want safer cars with better side protection. That needs to be done within the current rule set, or specific standards need to be developed that we can evolve our rules to. Trying to make hybrid cars legal today, or next month, is doing our community no more good than people trying to sell us illegal hybrid cars, then suing us because they're illegal.
In fact, three decisions of the CoA found the production version of the Radon legal. Two members of the CRB tasked with inspecting the cars found them compliant with the 2012 rules. Based on their report, the CRB and BoD specifically made the Radon legal under the 2012 rules, and that is printed in the GCR. The SCCA has told Radon owners, over and over again, that their cars are legal to race as delivered from the factory. The technical staff of the F2000 pro series, who understands the rules better than anyone else I've encountered, judged the car legal under the 2012 rules.
You and others can claim over and over again the car is illegal, but your opinion (like mine) doesn't matter. The SCCA has found it legal. Period.
Nathan
Are there really thousands of extant FF and FC cars? Where are they all?
My understanding is that the CRB has a policy of not making existing cars illegal with a rules change. As far as I know, they have followed that policy religiously with formula cars over the last couple of decades. With one notable exception.
Since the rules clarifications proposed in the February Fastrack specifically asked for "member input" I suspect the CRB will scale back their limitations on composite materials to allow existing instrument panels.
By the way, you should understand that any composite instrument panel mounted to the dash bulkhead with fasteners of any type is illegal under the current 2013 rules. If you have one of those illegal instrument panels, you should probably write the CRB and support the proposed rules clarifications absent the restriction on instrument panels.
You and others can claim over and over that the car is legal, but your opinion (like mine) doesn't matter. The SCCA has not found it legal. It has just not been deemed illegal.
As long as the cars hide from SCCA National events and behind lawyers, it will never be deemed illegal. That does not make it legal.
What is clear, the entire SCCA Formula car is threatened by all these actions, despite just a handful of uncompetitive SCCA outings. It is long past the time to put ego and personal agendas aside and do what is best for the North American formula car community.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
Wow. Greg and I actually agree on something!
In keeping with his points, don't you think it might have been a better route to protest a Radon yourself at an SCCA event to put all the rumors to rest (unless it NEVER was legal) and prove yourself correct, rather than initiate a sweeping lawsuit to people that had nothing to do with what you perceived as a conspiracy against you? The majority of people have decided that the Radons were not legal cars. Primarily, as no evidence to the contrary has be posed as a counter argument. It would be very easy to post pictures of cars, the super secret magic papers, and actual evidence, rather than filing a lawsuit. The fact that none of that has been provided speaks volumes. If what you say is true, post pictures, the secret papers, and actual evidence of legality, rather than hiding it.
Part of your lawsuit claims that the defendants therein restricted Radon's ability to sell cars. In all reality, your lawsuit has done that by itself. Very odd business strategy to sue your customer base (SCCA is a club after all) in hopes of selling cars....to your customer base.
These proposed rule changes are poorly written, ambiguous, and drive a wedge between the FC and FF rules. All which are bad for the classes, SCCA and it's members, and manufactures. Like Greg said, time to do what's best, and a lawsuit of this nature is certainly not it.
Last edited by reidhazelton; 01.24.14 at 11:51 PM.
I've seen one of these up real close - studied it in fact, and with Nathan crawling on the floor with me.
The parts are beautifully done... and IMHO the side panels, although outside normal FC construction, met the letter of the 6 inch rule. Two things bothered me:
- The rear rollhoop height was very obviously non-compliant.
- The front bellcrank structure was all encased in carbon.
Jimmy previously mentioned that his rollhoop is altered, but I hope all of them are by now.
And didn't the CRB rule on three things - where two were non-compliant and one was compliant? I forget what they were.
Hi Rob. Thanks for the compliment! Nice to hear from someone who's actually seen the car.
Anyone who is interested in learning more about the actual Radon, as opposed to the mythical every-formula-car-in-the-known-universe-killing imaginary car, will, I'm sure, be welcomed by any Radon owner. They do appear at many National and Regional races as well as all the Pro series races. We are perfectly willing to show any aspect of the car to anyone. We're not interested in providing fodder on the Internet for trolls.
To your two specific points:
- Some people sit up higher in the cars than I anticipated. After I saw that, I added two inches to the main roll hoop height of all production Radons. Every driver easily complies with the broomstick test now.
- The prototype car did use the a composite panel to partially support the front rockers and to mount the rear of the front dampers. All production cars use aluminum brackets mounted to the frame instead. No suspension component is mounted to any composite panel.
The CoA ruled on several things. The first ruling found two aspects of the design non-compliant, so we modified the design and resubmitted, at which point they found the car compliant. (Reid, the other name for that process is a "self-protest," which we've done several times, which is how we knew the car was legal under the 2012 rules.)
Nathan, I have not had the chance to look at your car but I do hope to have the opportunity soon. As I have said many times I am very impressed with what you guys at Radon have accomplished. It is no easy task to bring a new and innovative design to the marketplace.Hi Rob. Thanks for the compliment! Nice to hear from someone who's actually seen the car.
Anyone who is interested in learning more about the actual Radon, as opposed to the mythical every-formula-car-in-the-known-universe-killing imaginary car, will, I'm sure, be welcomed by any Radon owner. They do appear at many National and Regional races as well as all the Pro series races. We are perfectly willing to show any aspect of the car to anyone. We're not interested in providing fodder on the Internet for trolls.
To your two specific points:
- Some people sit up higher in the cars than I anticipated. After I saw that, I added two inches to the main roll hoop height of all production Radons. Every driver easily complies with the broomstick test now.
- The prototype car did use the a composite panel to partially support the front rockers and to mount the rear of the front dampers. All production cars use aluminum brackets mounted to the frame instead. No suspension component is mounted to any composite panel.
The CoA ruled on several things. The first ruling found two aspects of the design non-compliant, so we modified the design and resubmitted, at which point they found the car compliant. (Reid, the other name for that process is a "self-protest," which we've done several times, which is how we knew the car was legal under the 2012 rules.)
I do have one question though. If you have gone to the effort of making the above changes and the car is now compliant, why are you suing the SCCA and others? No matter what happens with the lawsuit, the cost to race for the members of the SCCA will go up as a direct result of this lawsuit.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
I am not seeing what Radon could possibly to do someone who protests their car in attempt to determine it's legality. Do you think Radon would sue someone for protesting the car? I can't imagine they would as there would be no standing in court, especially since Radon protested themselves.
I think the real reason the car hasn't been protested is 1.) no one wants to take the time to do it 2.) people would rather argue on the internet based on conjecture about the car than get a factual ruling from a protest 3.) they expect the Radon would be cleared through a protest and do not want this to happen
A number of people have said 100's or 1000's of cars will be made illegal, etc. I'm definitely picking up a sky is falling kind of vibe from these posts. Since I am not intimately familiar with ALL the FC chassis out there, I am asking those making those statements to qualify them. How many cars are being made illegal? How so?
Is it 1 car needing a "Made in UK" sticker on the dash to meet the rules? Or "1000's" of FC cars needing a completely new frame? I am guessing the SCCA would lean towards the former rather than the latter.
Last edited by rperry; 01.25.14 at 7:17 AM.
-Robert
I can't speak for the Radon crowd but I doubt very much if there would have been any lawsuit if the rules hadn't been changed after cars had been built, run in a few SCCA events and had not been protested....
Hi Jay. I look forward to showing you the car at some point. You are one of the few people who can appreciate what it takes to design and build a complete new formula car, so I'm sure you'll "get it" immediately.
Just to be clear, the car is legal under the 2012 rules but not the 2013 rules. The SCCA is allowing the first seven chassis to run, but we can't make any more. The 2013 rules explicitly made several features of the Radon illegal while not affecting any other cars.
Redesigning the car to meet the 2013 rules would be a MAJOR effort. The frame and bodywork would have to be completely redesigned, we'd have to redo much of the CFD work, and it would require a major investment in new tooling. I don't have the resources to do that.
Even if I were willing to take on the design work, I'm not willing to compromise safety. The current 2013 rules do not allow effective side protection. The proposed clarification corrects that.
Nathan
Thanks Nathan.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
If the intent of the rules clarification is to prevent "hybrid" construction cars, maybe the side panel rule is not the best way to achieve that? Instead, you could call out the size & general location of several mandatory frame tubes. Some already exist, like the forward braces that must extend to the front bulkhead. Add a diagonal from the main hoop bulkhead to the dash bulkhead, etc. The FIA rule does this (in an overly restrictive way) by specifying the min. dimensions and location of the frame tubes for panel mounting.
Which ties in with another rule I think should be modified:
D.6.b.2. "The material used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material". Literally, that means every tube that is not Horizontal in the cockpit area must to be 1"x.080". If a tube is diagonal ( and possibly even vertical ? ) , it is a "brace". I don't think any manufacturer does that. This could be replaced by the above rule.
Last edited by stephen wilson; 01.25.14 at 6:23 PM.
Wrong. I am surprised anyone even notices this rule.
I suspect that everyone who builds cars notices this rule. The question is: how many abide by this rule?
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Cockpit braces
I've heard someone suggest that rule means the tubes have to be made from the same material (steel, apparently) but that doesn't make any sense to me.
If you interpret it to mean the tubes in that area have to be 1.00 x .080" wall minimum, then most cars comply. I know the Citation meets it, as does the Radon (we don't use any tubes smaller than that except for the front bulkhead). I'm pretty sure the Mygale does, although the tubes might be 25 mm instead of 1 inch. The Van Diemen clearly doesn't.
I'd never suggest anyone protest someone for that, though. Some Van Diemen owners have said they'd just cut their rectangular and 7/8" OD cockpit tubes out in that area to comply...which doesn't exactly make the car safer!
oddly enough I have claimed the Radon is illegal and have also closely inspected one after asking the owner if I was allowed to or if he would be black balled if I did. We are good fri3ends and I was told to look all I want. I have posted on this site before what I think is illegal including part of the aero package. I have no intention of posting it again. By the way you could roll the rules back as far as you like and it still wouldn't be legal. I happen to run in the series where the car primarily competes so protesting one or the aero package is pointless since the series owner owns one of the cars. I prefer to just race.
By the way filing and open ended lawsuit that allows you to name defendants at a later date is a great way to shut people up. Hey you built a legal car for FS to bad you were aiming for FC.
Now back to writing letters against the rule change.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Runoffs 1 Gold 3 Silver 3 bronze, 8 Divisional , 6 Regional Champs , 3x Drivers of the year awards
D.6.b.2. "The material used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material". Literally, that means every tube that is not Horizontal in the cockpit area must to be 1"x.080". If a tube is diagonal ( and possibly even vertical ? ) , it is a "brace". I don't think any manufacturer does that. This could be replaced by the above rule.[/QUOTE]
I am having a hard time finding the rest of the rule, so I may be taking it out of context, but in design, material is literally defined as the chemical composition, not the dimensional measurements. Ie., if the roll hoop is 4130 steel, then the braces would have to be the same. The size would not be governed by that sentence. I looked in the SCCA glossary, and there is no alternate definition of material that SCCA uses. Dictionary.com defines it as:
"ma·te·ri·al
/m??t??ri
noun 1. the substance or substances of which a thing is made or composed: Stone is a durable material.
2. anything that serves as crude or raw matter to be used or developed: Wood pulp is the raw material from which paper is made.
3. any constituent element.
4. a textile fabric: material for a dress.
5. a group of ideas, facts, data, etc., that may provide the basis for or be incorporated into some integrated work: to gather material for a history of North Carolina; to write material for a comedy show."
These interpretations just prove my point, it's another poorly written rule. That was really just a side-bar to the intent of my post:
Opinions on specifying certain frame tubes to avoid hybrid construction?
9.1.1.3.e.2
"Reinforced body, consisting of at least two layers of 5 ounce, bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame. (5 or more
layers are highly recommended.) For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than 6 inch centers. The steel tubes used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to
the roll hoop brace material"
Since it says "tubes", I take that to mean the tubes used in this area must be as strong as the roll hoop braces.
YMMV....
Dave Weitzenhof
Its interesting because it does imo clearly state materials. In other words whatever you used for the main roll hoop you have to use for the braces metallurgy wise. Also 'tubes' don't have to be round. You can have square tubing , which of course is what the Van Diemen uses. We probably can ask 50 engineers / builders and get a wide disparity of answers. Interesting Mental debate / exersize though for sure.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Another "IMO"
IMO, when it says "roll hoop brace material" preceded by "steel tubes", in this case, it uses the word "material" in the sense that results of a strength analysis of all the properties of any side brace tube show that it could support loads at least as great as the same length of roll-hoop brace tubing (material).
Now I'm starting to sound like a lawyer...way too wordy.
This discussion really explains why our rule books get sooooooo looooooooooooong...
Last edited by DaveW; 01.26.14 at 11:34 AM. Reason: added last sentence...
Dave Weitzenhof
That's how I read it. It is to prevent people from using mere "attaching points" instead of actual chassis tubes.
I have a Citation.
IMO it is the safest car out there in FC, roll hoop and intrusion prevention wise. It is also extremely stiff.
And if I wasn't 30# overweight and the body had not been repaired so many times, I would be carrying ballast to make minimum weight.
I think that composite panels, properly designed and constructed can provide effective side intrusion protection.
And it one wants to write the rules such that they are not chassis stiffeners, simply require that the hole in the hard insert be say 1/16" bigger than the bolt going through it.
Require adequate but not too large washers, perhaps incorporated directly into the insert.
This way all the controversy about what side panels are not and which ones are legal.
Or just do like Steve and Richard did, design a proper tube frame.
This thread is getting old.
Citation
Steve:
As someone who has never really looked to closely at a Citation, can you explain why you think it's the safest car.
Jimmy
Jimmy Hanrahan
jimh3063@yahoo.com
action or no action ???
any number of posters have speculated or alluded to a civil action being filed as a central part of their post. has a civil action relating to FC or FF/FC rules been filed ?? or has one only been threatened?? if so, where? if a civil action has been filed, since it's not related to national security, I can't imagine the action has been sealed and is therefore public record. that being the case, why hasn't the action been posted instead of the speculation, assumptions, and rumors. "facts and data" might do wonders to help the dialog converge.........................
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
15 seconds on Google turned this up:
http://assets.bizjournals.com/kansas...StueveSCCA.pdf
Jimmy;
How about a life time of working around race cars dating from the mid '50s. 40 years of building cars. Plus 15 years of occasionally crash testing the cars I drove.
Years of real world accidents with my cars and other's to see what type of accidents are most likely and how those cars perform in highly stressed, accident situations. I have decades of engineering cars not of my own design and I have seen how many of those cars perform in crashes as well. Much of that experience has been on oval tracks where impact forces tend to be very high.
The Citations today are the product of starting with a very good design from Ed Zink and building upon that with experience and input from many other sources, especially my customers.
Can I improve my car? You bet. Are we improving our cars, you bet. This years cars will be better than previous cars and this year will show how we can make next years cars even better.
There are some features on the Citation that we pay a performance penalty but I choose to build the car that way because of safety considerations.
Last edited by S Lathrop; 01.28.14 at 12:40 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
