February 2014 Prelims

[Steve Bamford]

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

Art is this what you are looking for?

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

looks like while posting I was beat by others

[Jnovak]

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.

I have seen the Citations up close and personal many times over many years. I agree with Steve that the Citation chassis is among the safest open wheel tube framed chassis available anywhere.

Take a close look at a Citation Jimmy and you will agree.

[Art Smith]

thanks guys!! I find it so much easier to enjoy the play with a program

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[jimh3063]

Steve:
I think you're misinterpreting the question. Unlike others on this board. I don't comment on something I've never seen up close. I am asking a question about what features. I can't comment on the car because honestly I've never seen one up close and I am not qualified to judge. I am a Computer guy and not a race car designer.

So I ask my question again as someone who wants to learn not someone who is ball busting. Steve Demeter, stated "the safest FC car"

What features make it the safest car. Again. I spend MOST of my time on this board trying to learn. I was trying to learn about your car. I'll leave the ball busting to others who are much better at it than me.

Jimmy

[DaveW]

Here is a few years old photo of my (1994 with updates) frame. This may give you some idea of what both Steve Lathrop and Steve Demeter are talking about. Note the roll cage, bracing, etc.

[S Lathrop]

Steve:
I think you're misinterpreting the question. Unlike others on this board. I don't comment on something I've never seen up close. I am asking a question about what features. I can't comment on the car because honestly I've never seen one up close and I am not qualified to judge. I am a Computer guy and not a race car designer.

So I ask my question again as someone who wants to learn not someone who is ball busting. Steve Demeter, stated "the safest FC car"

What features make it the safest car. Again. I spend MOST of my time on this board trying to learn. I was trying to learn about your car. I'll leave the ball busting to others who are much better at it than me.

Jimmy

There are 2 Steves on this thread.

[jimh3063]

Steve L:
I was asking this to Steve Demeter. You designed the car but never said it was the safest. Again, am trying to get an education. I don't really care who answers as long as it's factual and not opinion.

I enjoy the dialog between all the people who make cars. I learn a lot and it's from people who actually make cars vs peoples opinions of their own cars.

Jimmy

[S Lathrop]

Steve L:
I was asking this to Steve Demeter. You designed the car but never said it was the safest. Again, am trying to get an education. I don't really care who answers as long as it's factual and not opinion.

I enjoy the dialog between all the people who make cars. I learn a lot and it's from people who actually make cars vs peoples opinions of their own cars.

Jimmy

Racing is inherently dangerous. We all sign a release when we go racing.

How do you define safe? Safe from what?

What is safe for a road course in a car going 140 mph may be way different than safe for the same car on an oval. A FF struggles to get much above 130. Reasonable level of safety for an FF may not be so for a FC and even less for a FB at 150.

You look at your car and make some determinations about what you considered to be the safety features that you liked. I can look at the same car and see things that I think don't offer the same level of safety I would want in a car I might drive. The bottom line is safety is in the eye of the beholder because experience has not shown otherwise.

Bottom line is that all race cars are perfectly safe when they are parked in the pits. And all race cars are risky when they are being used as intended. The Citation probably is safer in a particular situation than a Radon and the reverse is true for different situations.

To try and determine which car is safer is pure speculation without real world crash data to back that up.

[reidhazelton]

The Citation probably is safer in a particular situation than a Radon and the reverse is true for different situations.

To try and determine which car is safer is pure speculation without real world crash data to back that up.

Radon vs. Citation Demo-derby? Winner take all.

[jimh3063]

Steve L:
When Steve D stated that he thought the Citation was the safest FC, I wasn't saying it wasn't I was asking why. I am a naturally curious and inquisitive person. I don't have the background to say who is the safest. My input would only be an opinion. As you stated some crash model may have to Citation safer and some the Radon and who knows some a completely different car. I am not the person qualified to make that decision. I was asking Steve D because he seemed pretty definitive. Again, I am a computer person not a race car designer. I thought what I asked could be a valuable question based on what Steve D stated. I had a Dallara F301 which I thought was VERY safe for a bunch of reasons I can actually state as a lay person. I was hoping Steve D could tell me why he thought the Citation was so safe. I saw Dave's pics and I would agree that thing looks stout. I was just hoping for more than a pic and some detail that's all.

Jimmy

[Jnovak]

I know that Steve L. does extensive FEA modeling and chassis stiffness testing.

I am also sure that Nathan and the Radon team have completed similar work.

Cars that are stiffer and stronger have been shown to be safer.

[BLS]

I was hoping Steve D could tell me why he thought the Citation was so safe.

Steve L designed it.

[jimh3063]

I think this may be a topic for another thread and I think at one time this thread was about the rule change.

I'll start this on another thread as I find it interesting and the right forum as there are a few car builders on there.

Jimmy

[nulrich]

I do agree with Steve that everyone has to make their own decision about acceptable risk. We've come a long way since the famous Hemingway quote, and things like HANS devices, bead seats, head surrounds, wheel tethers, composite attenuators, etc have dramatically improved formula car safety. That doesn't mean we can't do better.

I do disagree with Steve slightly in that I think there are some available practices and standards that are useful in designing and measuring safety. When I designed the Radon I didn't have the benefit of his years of building and crashing formula cars (I crashed production-based cars when I drove) or his experience looking at how various designs fared in different types of crashes.

Instead, I looked at all the other cars I could find (including the Citation, which is an excellent design), the applicable FIA standards, and some F1 safety data I had access to. I found the FIA information very useful. They spend a lot of time and money studying accidents and promulgating new standards. For example, the "alternate design" roll cage criteria that both the Citation and Radon are homologated under are an older FIA standard, one about 3 to 5 times more stringent than the SCCA minimum.

I'd be glad to participate in a more specific discussion of formula car safety standards if Jimmy starts a thread.

Nathan

[problemchild]

Instead, I looked at all the other cars I could find (including the Citation, which is an excellent design), the applicable FIA standards, and some F1 safety data I had access to. I found the FIA information very useful. They spend a lot of time and money studying accidents and promulgating new standards. For example, the "alternate design" roll cage criteria that both the Citation and Radon are homologated under are an older FIA standard, one about 3 to 5 times more stringent than the SCCA minimum.

Personally, I would much rather have a roll cage to SCCA specs that is 6-8" above my helmet than a FIA standard design that needs the driver to duck to fit under a broomstick test. I find this contradiction to the supposed safety focus, to totally undermine the engineering brilliance being promoted. I think that your research should start with how much the belts stretch when flying upside down at 100 mph. Is it 12 inches or merely 7-8 inches of stretch?

Roll bar height should be lesson one in "Race Car Design 101".

[jimh3063]

Greg:
The first cars have an added piece to the hoop. The last two cars and all others have an added 2 inches onto the roll hoop. Check out pics of the yellow and black car. it has the taller hoop. The Radon is different in it's seating position than that any other FC car. A lot of the drivers added material to the seat to get in a familiar position as all of the drivers were coming from VD's. Depending on the amount of material and your preferred seating position, most drivers are fine. Nathan added 2 inches to the hoop to make sure no matter what position the driver chooses and no matter the amount of seating material, there would be no issue. I suggest to sit in one. This will be a lot clearer. It's like sitting in an F16 vs an F15. The Radon is more like an F1 car in it's designed seating position. I'm 6' and Nathan is taller than me. If you don't use as much material on the ass area, you are in good shape. If that position doesn't feel natural to you and you add more material to be more upright, well you can figure out what happens.

Jimmy

[jimh3063]

Greg:
Do you think the first guy is meeting the standard you mentioned? You really notice it if you look at the second cars clearance over the helmet.

Jimmy

[problemchild]

Greg:
Do you think the first guy is meeting the standard you mentioned? You really notice it if you look at the second cars clearance over the helmet.

Jimmy

Yes, you are correct. Although Steve has twice the extra roll bar height of any Radon, with 4-5 " clearance, passes the broomstick test without any manipulation ....... we would absolutely prefer more. He is as low as we can get him. I did not design the car and have expressed my concerns to the factory. Aaron, in the car behind, is a proper race car driver size, and fits perfectly, also taking advantage of the head-surround protection that is too low to do much good for Steve.

I won't drive my car, shown in my avatar, because I sit too high. I consider roll bar height to be the first safety feature to consider, and harass friends and foes alike over the issue. It is just so simple!

The roll hoop on the Momentum car would satisfy my concerns, based on the driver I saw in it at the Glen. You evaluate roll bar height by looking at pics of the car on track, not by sitting in it.

Rather than try and take shots at someone pointing out obvious concerns, perhaps you should consider asking your manufacturer to build higher roll bars, or modify yours. What is the point of having super side protection if you get hurt in a very tame upside down incident when you land upside down with your helmet?

[alangbaker]

Greg:
Do you think the first guy is meeting the standard you mentioned? You really notice it if you look at the second cars clearance over the helmet.

Jimmy

For a guy who says he's just here to learn, you seem to engage in a whole lot of "nyah, nyah" and veiled insult...

[alangbaker]

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'm not yet entirely familiar with the procedures of the SCCA, so perhaps you could clarify something for me; actually a few of things:

If you do a "self-protest", are you protesting the car as a whole, or are you protesting a specific aspect of the car?

If a specific aspect, then would I be correct in assuming that only the aspect that was protested is found to be in compliance and that the ruling doesn't declare the totality of the car to be legal?

What were your self-protests?

[Steve Demeter]

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,

take a look at Dave W's pic.

Look at how the driver's head is surrounded by large, well triangulated tubing.

Take a look at the dash hoop and it's bracing.

Then take a look at the main hoop. You will notice that it is actually 2 large tubes welded at the top with an aluminum skin riveted to them.

Then take a look at how it extends to the lower frame rails.

Then take a look at how the front of the engine bolts to the main hoop uprights down low. That means that the engine is supported off your head in a rollover in the most stout way possible. If the car breaks in half at the bulkhead and the engine tears away, the attachments are such that they will break first leaving the driver in a nice steel cocoon.

Then take a look at the numerous diagonal braces in the lower cockpit area (exactly where someone t boning you will impact.

This is from a mechanical engineer with many years of designing various structures from free standing elevators to special machines to perform various cutting operations. I understand structures from 30+ years of doing this.

As stated earlier Steve Lathrop designed it and he and maybe Richard built it.

Something Dave W did not mention was that a number of years ago he was hit by an Atlantic at the kink at Nelson Ledges and went end over end and barrel rolled numerous times and the only thing bent on the frame was the area that carries the nose and Master Cylinders.

[jimh3063]

Alan:
I ask questions to learn. I post pictures to help understand things. A picture is worth a thousand word as they say.

I don't have time to read all the GCR as all I do for a living is read technical manuals. The last thing I want to do it read more of them in my non working time. I've learned a lot from this thread. We all are looking for the same thing. To be safe, have fun and live to race another day. I think Steve and Nathans contributions to this thread were extremely valuable and Dave's picture was helpful. I have now seen a Citation with it's bodywork off and have a better appreciation for it

I posted the picture of Greg's driver for a reference as he was using the pictures of radon drivers as a reference. Felt like I was comparing apples to apples.

I hope to see you at the track someday and we we can grab a beer a talk in person. A bbs looses a lot in translation.

Jimmy

[Wren]

There is a lot of good information in this thread, but don't forget to write your letters in.

I have attached mine to this post. Feel free to borrow or plagiarize in any way that you want to.

These rules are poorly written, vague, and break apart FC and FF construction. This is the biggest change since at least 1986, maybe ever.

[problemchild]

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.

After reading this:
http://assets.bizjournals.com/kansas...StueveSCCA.pdf
I change my original stance (above) now that I understand the context. We don't need 2012 rules. We don't need new rules. We need to keep the rules as they are. We can evolve the current rules when we have good reason to. Write your letters!

[nulrich]

The roll hoop on the Momentum car would satisfy my concerns, based on the driver I saw in it at the Glen. You evaluate roll bar height by looking at pics of the car on track, not by sitting in it.

Rather than try and take shots at someone pointing out obvious concerns, perhaps you should consider asking your manufacturer to build higher roll bars, or modify yours. What is the point of having super side protection if you get hurt in a very tame upside down incident when you land upside down with your helmet?

Thank you. That's one of the later Radons built, all of which have the higher roll hoops from the factory. The roll hoop on Jimmy's car is just as high now. All of the earlier cars have been modified. Some of the drivers are just uncomfortable with a more laid-back driving position, and we made changes once we discovered that.

Nathan

[problemchild]

Thank you. That's one of the later Radons built, all of which have the higher roll hoops from the factory. The roll hoop on Jimmy's car is just as high now. All of the earlier cars have been modified. Some of the drivers are just uncomfortable with a more laid-back driving position, and we made changes once we discovered that.

Nathan

I love the way you and Jimmy just ignore everything but the few points you have an answer to. I am glad you raised it slightly. That car with that driver are the only pics that I have found that would reach marginal status, IMO. I would hope that your next cars have another 4-6 inches of roll bar height, but you seem much more interested in playing games with all of us.

If we are truly concerned with safety, the lets start my protecting the head with some real height in the roll bar. When we do evolve the rules, I would support a rule that all new cars must have increased roll bar height.

[nulrich]

Greg, I'm not sure what questions you have that I haven't answered. I'm not interested in responding to your personal attacks or aspersions on a design you clearly don't understand. You complained that the roll hoop on the Radons wasn't high enough, Jimmy and I both explained they had been raised. If you believe they are still not high enough, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

You should realize that the height of the roll hoop is only one aspect of driver protection, and likely not even the most important. If you'd like for me to explain why, I'll do so gladly. If you want to insult me or my designs, you are welcome to continue to do that as well...but I'm not going to respond, life is too short to engage in childish games.

I believe Steve Bamford is one of your drivers, yes? I just looked on the F2000 web site and found some photos which are as close as I can find to sideways. They aren't perfectly from the side, so they likely exaggerate the lack of clearance, but Steve seems to have considerably less broomstick clearance than Peter Gonzalez, a Radon driver. These two photos are taken from the identical spot and seem to be from identical angles. I've drawn lines from the top of the roll hoop to the "nipple" on the front roll hoop of the Van Diemen....and been quite generous with it. I've driven a line from the top of the roll hoop (modified) on Peter's car to the top of the front roll hoop, which is quite a bit further forward on the Radon. I've been very conservative.

You can quibble with this or draw your own lines, but until you've actually looked at a Radon you probably won't understand.

Nathan

[Steve Bamford]

Greg, I'm not sure what questions you have that I haven't answered. I'm not interested in responding to your personal attacks or aspersions on a design you clearly don't understand. You complained that the roll hoop on the Radons wasn't high enough, Jimmy and I both explained they had been raised. If you believe they are still not high enough, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

You should realize that the height of the roll hoop is only one aspect of driver protection, and likely not even the most important. If you'd like for me to explain why, I'll do so gladly. If you want to insult me or my designs, you are welcome to continue to do that as well...but I'm not going to respond, life is too short to engage in childish games.

I believe Steve Bamford is one of your drivers, yes? I just looked on the F2000 web site and found some photos which are as close as I can find to sideways. They aren't perfectly from the side, so they likely exaggerate the lack of clearance, but Steve seems to have considerably less broomstick clearance than Peter Gonzalez, a Radon driver. These two photos are taken from the identical spot and seem to be from identical angles. I've drawn lines from the top of the roll hoop to the "nipple" on the front roll hoop of the Van Diemen....and been quite generous with it. I've driven a line from the top of the roll hoop (modified) on Peter's car to the top of the front roll hoop, which is quite a bit further forward on the Radon. I've been very conservative.

You can quibble with this or draw your own lines, but until you've actually looked at a Radon you probably won't understand.

Nathan

Do we really want to start posting pictures? There are many pics of Radons with drivers sitting well above this picture you posted that have been here on Apexspeed.

[jimh3063]

Steve:
I agree with you. There are many pictures of a few of the taller Radon drivers that probably wouldn't make the broomstick rule. I think Nathan would agree as well. I thing that both of us were trying to say is the problem you mentioned was acknowledged and fixed. Look at the modified rollhoop. Are you saying there are pictures of Radon's other than Phil s that have been modified and still don't meet the rule?

I would also say the rule applies to the car with the specific driver in it. I know Fabio would pass in an unmodified car as he is shorter than myself, Bob Wright or Peter.

It's the driver in the respective car that the broomstick rule applies to. You're a tall guy. A smaller guy may fit great in your car and the picture above of your car would look a lot different with that driver.

Jimmy

[alangbaker]

Do we really want to start posting pictures? There are many pics of Radons with drivers sitting well above this picture you posted that have been here on Apexspeed.

Not to mention that Nathan conveniently drew the line in the Radon pick a good couple of inches above where the roll bar is...

[steve zemke]

Thanks Wren. I will plagiarize.

[jimh3063]

Not to mention that Nathan conveniently drew the line in the Radon pick a good couple of inches above where the roll bar is...

Alan:
Look at the addition on top of the rollbar. That is now considered the top of the rollbar.
This was verified by scrutineers to be valid. Is there a place in the GCR that says it's not?

I'm sure if there is Wren will post it.
Jimmy

[Steve Bamford]

Steve:
I agree with you. There are many pictures of a few of the taller Radon drivers that probably wouldn't make the broomstick rule. I think Nathan would agree as well. I thing that both of us were trying to say is the problem you mentioned was acknowledged and fixed. Look at the modified rollhoop. Are you saying there are pictures of Radon's other than Phils that have BEEN modified and still don't meet the rule?

Jimmy

I haven't seen every car so don't care to argue about it other then posting pics isn't going to turn out well.

I think an issue raised was that we keep hearing that the design of the car could be changed to meet the rule set but won't as it would be a compromise on safety. When you say something like that & yet put drivers in the car that "appear", at the very least, to be well above the where they should be then the statement of safety might not be taken at face value. This along with law suits & rule set changes likely will cause some SCCA members to not be so happy with what is currently proposed.

I am glad to hear/see the roll hoop height has been increased.

[alangbaker]

Alan:
Look at the addition on top of the rollbar. That is now considered the top of the rollbar.
This was verified by scrutineers to be valid. Is there a place in the GCR that says it's not?

If that is a part of the roll bar and not a camera mount, I withdraw my comment.

I'm sure if there is Wren will post it.
Jimmy

And just what purpose did that comment serve?

[jimh3063]

If that is a part of the roll bar and not a camera mount, I withdraw my comment.

Alan, it is not a camera mount. I mount my camera to it though.


And just what purpose did that comment serve?

Wren can quote the GCR like a stripper rubs a pole. I cannot. I'll give Wren his due, he knows the rules most of the time. Give credit where credit is due.

Jimmy

[reidhazelton]

.

[Wren]

I'm sure if there is Wren will post it.

I'm glad you asked.

This is something that I have spent a lot of time looking at as my FC has a roll hoop that has been legally extended.

The governing part of the 2014 GCR for my car(1992 DB-6) is section 9.4.7 which reads:

The following procedures are approved for modification to roll bars/cages
that do not meet the two (2) inch required minimum: The old main hoop
may be cut off near the chassis mounting and a new main hoop of equal
tube size or a section of equal tubing size may be added, and inner tube(s)
must be used to mate all sections together. All braces must be minimum
distance from top of hoop per Section 9.4. All welding for this modification
must be arc welded (min.). The inner tube(s) must be rosette welded
three (3) places near top and bottom, see figure 21.

I believe this to be the only acceptable way to extend a roll hoop, although these rules are for pre-2007 cars.

The interpretation that I hear most often for adding something to a roll hoop is that only the SRF is allowed to have an extension to the roll hoop that is tacked on to the original roll hoop. As far as I can read in the rules, that is how it is.

The relevant rules are the broomstick rule:

A straight line drawn
from the top of the main hoop to the top of the front hoop shall
pass over the driver’s helmet.

Main Hoop rules:

The main hoop shall be constructed of tubing per 9.4.5.E.4.

up to 1700 pounds / 1.375x.080

No alternate roll hoop will be considered unless it contains a main hoop having a minimum tubing size of 1.375” x .080” wall thickness.

I can't tell what that nub (I don't know what else to call it) on top of the roll hoop is made of, but I don't see any way under the GCR that the nub can be considered part of the main roll hoop and the broom stick rule measures from the main roll hoop.

So no, I don't think that your nub is legal roll hoop extension. Scrutineers are not the final word on compliance, all they do is refer things for chief stewards actions and they are often not familiar with the rules, especially rules like this that are never teched in impound.


I'm sorry, but the right way to fix it is to cut out the roll hoop and put in a new one. If factory support is no longer available, there are a number of fabricators capable of completing this task, as well as PE's to repeat the analysis. Although the analysis should have been performed already for the new hoops for the last two cars.

I am unaware of any recent rulings on this. Maybe someone can correct me. I would strongly reccomend that you seek out a ruling on this.

Thoughts from the group? This might be a discussion for another thread.

Then there is the question of how the car was originally delivered.

[nulrich]

Of course none of the sections you quoted apply, except for the final one, where you conveniently omitted the important parts:

F. Exceptions for Formula Cars and Sports Racing cars
Any roll hoop design which does not comply with the specifications
in 9.4.5, will only be considered if it is accompanied by engineering
specifications signed by a registered engineer. No alternate
roll hoop will be considered unless it contains a main hoop having
a minimum tubing size of 1.375” x .080” wall thickness. The roll
bar must be capable of withstanding the following stress loading
applied simultaneously to the top of the roll bar: 1.5 (X) laterally,
5.5 (X) longitudinally in both the fore and aft directions, and 7.5 (X)
vertically, where (X) = the minimum weight of the car.

The Radon main roll hoop with extension complies with this. The main hoop assembly clearly "contains" the required tubing. The main hoop includes the extension (otherwise why say "contains?").

Not that it matters, but the extension also complies with the 2014 Formula 1 regulations for roll hoops and has a cross-sectional area greater than the top of a Van Diemen roll hoop.

Your interpretation, though creative, would also make Van Diemens, Mygales and Citations illegal, all of which have main roll hoops which include material other than the 1.375 x .080" tubing. And of course make the "nub" on the Van Diemen front roll hoop not relevant for measurement, which would make all of those cars non-compliant.

Nathan

[Wren]

Of course none of the sections you quoted apply, except for the final one, where you conveniently omitted the important parts:

So it is your position that the broomstick rule I quoted does not apply to the Radon?

The Radon main roll hoop with extension complies with this. The main hoop assembly clearly "contains" the required tubing. The main hoop includes the extension (otherwise why say "contains?").

Then get the ruling. That is not how I understand the rule.

It is my belief that anything that is not 1.375x.080 is not part of the main hoop and may not be considered for the broom stick rule, so your nub would not be considered part of the main hoop. The main hoop that the rule you quoted requires to be contained is to be made from 1.375x.080. What are the important parts that I am leaving out?

Your interpretation, though creative, would also make Van Diemens, Mygales and Citations illegal, all of which have main roll hoops which include material other than the 1.375 x .080" tubing. And of course make the "nub" on the Van Diemen front roll hoop not relevant for measurement, which would make all of those cars non-compliant.

This method of argument is the same that you have been using on this forum for years. Every time that someone disagrees with you or posts something that you don't like, you start throwing other people/manufacturers under the bus without any explanation.
I am not familiar with the Mygale or late model VD hoop, but from being around the Citation chassis I know that you are wrong about it. I really cannot even imagine what you are talking about. Given how you try to deflect blame, I am going to guess that you are wrong about the other cars as well and intentionally misunderstanding the GCR and what I posted to try to bolster your argument.

As for the front roll hoop, I didn't say anything about it and I don't know why you are bringing it up.

[Dennis McCarthy]

When you all get done pissing in the wind why don't you simply show up and race. If you don't like the other guys car show up at a race have some cajones and actually protest it. This nonsense is nothing more than mental masturbation...