February 2014 Prelims

[S Lathrop]

Nathan;

You are right to show the bottom of the Citation frame and all the rivets. That is what I found necessary to keep the belly pans rigidly attached to the bottom of the frame. I think your approach of welding 16 ga. 4130 sheet steel to the bottom is way less work, and most likely negligible difference in weight.

My hesitation to use welded steel is the difficulty of replacing the pan when it becomes so damaged by banging the ground and sliding over rocks and other things that it has to be replaced. But most of the cars these days have skids of some sort that that is probably not worth considering any longer.

I found that the only way to keep the belly pans attached was with 2" wide, glued and riveted joints. It is a lot of work. But the pan is an integral part of the frame structure and makes a very considerable contribution to the stiffness of the frame.

When I used .060 thick aluminum belly pans, after they had been run for a season, many times the belly pan could not be reinstalled after it had been removed because the holes would no longer line up sufficiently to be reattached with the same sized rivets. With thicker aluminum the belly pans did go back on if they were not otherwise damaged.

Joints are always a design issue. I think the fewer you have the fewer potential problems you might have.

When I was with PacWest I engineered on a Lola T97 that had over 30,000 miles on the tub at the beginning of the season. We banged the walls more than once that year. And we had some very good results as well. That tub had a lot of professional repairs over the years it was run. So, yes, composites will stand up to abuse. But that tub cost more than a FF or FC of that time.

The rules and their interpretations change over time. I have pushed a few rules issues in my time designing cars as have you. I have won a few and lost on a few as well. And the rule book has changes as a result of some of some things I tried. I remember one time when I protested a car for a construction rules violation and he protested me. We were both disqualified and rightly so. The following year the rules did change.

Welcome to SCCA.

[nulrich]

Morning Steve. I've had that photo on my hard drive for some time. I think it might be Brandon's frame. Something very pleasing about a staggered line of solid rivets like that, at least to an engineering geek like me.

The Radon has a fiberglass undertray that covers and protects the steel floor. Otherwise I would have used a replaceable aluminum floor like the Citation, which is a better solution if the floor is exposed.

I changed the design of the Rn.10 three times in response to SCCA rules changes, some more significant than others. I just wasn't comfortable changing it again when the 2013 rules came along and required a significant reduction in safety to comply. Even if we'd had the resources to completely redesign and retool the car to meet the new rules, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if someone had been seriously injured or killed because I was willing to compromise on driver protection. As a designer, and someone who has been very proactive on safety with the Citation, I'm sure you understand what it feels like to know every decision you make might affect the safety of your customers.

Nathan

[S Lathrop]

I can appreciate your concern about safety.

I did a lot of the safety testing of my cars myself.

On one occasion, I rolled the car on the track once and followed that with another roll over the guard rail. That was over the guard rail upside down. The guard rail hit the roll bar and the side of the frame. Just as the car started over the first time, I thought that this was the one version of that car with the lowest roll bar. My helmet had skid marks on the top from the track. Cars after that all had taller roll bars. LaRue had a similar crash in 2012, at the same corner, and it was the tall roll bar that saved the day.

Bragging a little, I had the first car homoligated for SCCA racing that met the 1984 roll cage rules. It was a FSV in 1977. The Z16 followed a year later.

My frame structure is such that the car has reasonable side protection because the frame rails in the side of the cockpit form a series of triangles that result in a curved surface around the driver. Some of those tubes are roll bar brace material.

[nulrich]

I think the Citation has about the best side protection possible with a pure tube frame car. It should be very effective against blunt force impacts. The gaps between tubes do allow nose cones and sharp suspension components to penetrate. Although reinforced bodywork helps a little, I think we can do better. Unfortunately, the current FF/FC rules (as well as the FB rules) don't really allow any composite anti-intrusion panels (since, by their nature, they will "serve a structural purpose" and stiffen the frame somewhat).

As I mentioned in another thread, the FIA Formula 4 rules require a 12 mm thick composite panel bolted solidly to the frame as shown in the first drawing. That certainly isn't legal under the current FF/FC rules, nor would it be legal under the proposed clarifications (the fasteners are too big). The design of the panels and the layup schedule is basically identical to the Radon panels.

The second drawing shows the design of the Radon panel mounting system. The welded in bungs are engineered so that they do not compromise the strength of the tubes. I have versions for both 1-3/8" and 1" diameter tubing. The fastener is 1/4" diameter, made from chromoly steel, and would meet the requirements of the proposed rules clarification. We use a Nord-Lock washer and a jetnut. So far, we've seen no failure or fretting of these joints.

These parts are made in NH by an ApexSpeed and SCCA member, and I'm supplying them (at cost) to folks in some other classes where they are legal. If the clarification goes through, they would be legal in FF/FC, too, and I'd be glad to supply anyone in those classes who is interested. If you'd rather have them made yourself, I'll give you the drawings or solid models upon request. I'm also willing to share the knowledge we've gained on building these panels, which you could make in your garage using WEST system.

Given some of the Citation drivers are fairly slender (yes, Dave and Tim, I'm talking about you), I think you could afford to add a few pounds of composite panel. Of course, it WOULD make your chassis even stiffer!

[S Lathrop]

One area we are overlooking that has the potential to improve side intrusion protection is the location and construction of the side pods. Anti intrusion panels in the side pods would be even more effective than the same thing mounted to the frame.

The Citation side pods span the distance between the front and rear roll hoops. The radiators are mostly behind the driver but the inner duct is a box structure attached to the body side panels. This part is structural in that is supports the radiator. Covering that is the side pod itself. The latest version of which is reinforced composite structure. Bottoms of the side pods are substantial structures as well. The VD's are constructed the same way and the side pods cover the same area of the car as do the Citation pods.

The biggest penetration hazards to the drivers come from the suspension of the car itself. We have anti intrusion bars on all the front suspension arms. But even that is no substitute for good design of the mounting and protection in the area most likely to be affected by a broken component. Can I and all the other designers do better? Certainly.

The point here is that there are many approaches to safety and the record of the cars outr there is not bad at all.

[alangbaker]

I think the Citation has about the best side protection possible with a pure tube frame car. It should be very effective against blunt force impacts. The gaps between tubes do allow nose cones and sharp suspension components to penetrate. Although reinforced bodywork helps a little, I think we can do better. Unfortunately, the current FF/FC rules (as well as the FB rules) don't really allow any composite anti-intrusion panels (since, by their nature, they will "serve a structural purpose" and stiffen the frame somewhat).

I'm a little confused by that last statement.

I have a copy of the GCR from September of 2012 and it explicitly allows for anti-intrustion panels of the type the FIA is now promulgating for F4:

Composite anti-intrusion panels shall be attached with no more than eight fasteners per side. Fasteners shall be AN or superior grade of not more than 0.25 inch diameter. Two flat or coun- tersunk Mil Spec or SAE washers of no more than 1 inch diam- eter may be employed with each fastener. Ten fasteners per side are permitted if the panels extend to the front bulkhead.

Alright: as of that revision, it allowed fewer fasteners, but the rules of that date certainly did allow anti-intrustion panels that would stiffen the frame.

[Parker]

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.



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

The way I read the proposed rules, there is not an exclusion from attaching suspension components to interior panels, and there is no wording to specify how these interior panels are attached to one another. Also, I could attach suspension brackets to composite panels and require only one small fastener or maybe none. One could do this with a mortise and tenon, dovetail, or christmas tree type attachment. The suspension bracket could be lightly attached to the vestigial frame tubes so that is would "roll" without the interior panels. Even if I had to attach the suspension brackets to the frame, I could make the frame captive by the interior panel and as such have great load distribution characteristics and no fasteners.


Still don't get the stressed panel exclusion in the engine bay. What cars have stressed panels around the engine, oil tank, bell housing, or gearbox in the SCCA? None that I've seen except maybe the "bell housing" in the Pipers. To call this machined plate construction a "panel" is a real stretch!


I don't have any stake in this discussion except as an SCCA member, formula car driver, and scrutineer, but it is fun to see where these rules can be taken if in a vacuum.

[nulrich]

The way I read the proposed rules, there is not an exclusion from attaching suspension components to interior panels, and there is no wording to specify how these interior panels are attached to one another.

Good point. Earlier, in 9.1.1.B.3.f. it says "Suspension components shall not be mounted directly to any frame exterior panel (including, but not limited to body and anti-intrusion panels)." I'm assuming they wanted the same restriction to apply to composite panels contained completely within the frame, but they should add it to cockpit interior panel section.

Also, I could attach suspension brackets to composite panels and require only one small fastener or maybe none. One could do this with a mortise and tenon, dovetail, or christmas tree type attachment. The suspension bracket could be lightly attached to the vestigial frame tubes so that is would "roll" without the interior panels. Even if I had to attach the suspension brackets to the frame, I could make the frame captive by the interior panel and as such have great load distribution characteristics and no fasteners.

You could use a number of very exotic (and expensive and hard to maintain) fastening methods, but the suspension would still be "mounted" to them. It doesn't say anything about the number or type of fasteners, you can't attach them AT ALL. Assuming the prohibition against mounting suspension to panels also applies to cockpit interior panels (which it should, in my opinion).

Also, you still need a full tube frame to meet the GCR roll cage requirements and the FF/FC specific requirements. That frame weighs quite a lot, so you're essentially proposing building two chassis, one within the other. It would not only be heavier than a tube frame, it would be bigger.

Interesting exercise, though!

Still don't get the stressed panel exclusion in the engine bay. What cars have stressed panels around the engine, oil tank, bell housing, or gearbox in the SCCA? None that I've seen except maybe the "bell housing" in the Pipers. To call this machined plate construction a "panel" is a real stretch!

The Van Diemen has a stressed panel (aluminum floor riveted and bonded to square tubes) under the engine bay. I've seen Citation bell housings that are bolted together and have plates that extend alongside the gearbox to reinforce it. The Radon has a bell housing that includes welded together panels. And there's the Piper bell housing. Why is it a stretch to call a 1/4" thick machined plate a "panel?" It meets every definition I've seen.

[nulrich]

I'm a little confused by that last statement.

I have a copy of the GCR from September of 2012 and it explicitly allows for anti-intrustion panels of the type the FIA is now promulgating for F4:

Composite anti-intrusion panels shall be attached with no more than eight fasteners per side. Fasteners shall be AN or superior grade of not more than 0.25 inch diameter. Two flat or coun- tersunk Mil Spec or SAE washers of no more than 1 inch diam- eter may be employed with each fastener. Ten fasteners per side are permitted if the panels extend to the front bulkhead.

Alright: as of that revision, it allowed fewer fasteners, but the rules of that date certainly did allow anti-intrustion panels that would stiffen the frame.

When I said "current rules" I meant the 2013 (now 2014) rules which have the following specific prohibition:

GCR 9.1.1.B.f. No other exterior panels (excepting body work) shall be permitted in the area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the forward most bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead.

Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and antiintrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or installed in such a manner that they serve any structural purpose other than that of anti-intrusion. In the absence of such panels the chassis must be capable of performing to the same level or degree as when they are installed.

No panels or other components other than the required and optional load bearing panels may be attached to the chassis for structural purposes, except that the engine, bell housing/oil tank and gearbox are permitted to be stressed and/or load bearing.

I don't know how you measure "any structural purpose" or "performing to the same level or degree" but I suspect every individual would have their own standard. Not what you want in rules. And the FIA mandated Formula 4 panels would clearly violate those rules.

The proposed clarification replaces that with:

9.1.1.B.f. No other exterior panels (excepting body work) shall be permitted in the area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the forward most bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. Suspension components shall not be mounted directly to any frame exterior panel (including, but not limited to body and anti-intrusion panels). 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.

Still not perfect, but certainly a LOT less ambiguous. Maybe it should say "rolling at the same ride height +/- 1 inch or something" instead.

Nathan

[alangbaker]

When I said "current rules" I meant the 2013 (now 2014) rules which have the following specific prohibition:

GCR 9.1.1.B.f. No other exterior panels (excepting body work) shall be permitted in the area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the forward most bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead.

Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and antiintrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or installed in such a manner that they serve any structural purpose other than that of anti-intrusion.

I don't know how you measure "any structural purpose" or "performing to the same level or degree" but I suspect every individual would have their own standard. Not what you want in rules. And the FIA mandated Formula 4 panels would clearly violate those rules.

1. The "no other exterior panels" part is there because the anti-intrusion panels are explicitly allowed. Hence 9.1.1.B.f does NOT rule out anti-intrusion panels.

2. The FIA mandate panels are an update on the rules for the already extent anti-intrusion panel rules. Characterizing them as something that "clearly violates" the FF/FC rules is a little disingenuous, don't you think?

[Parker]

Good point. Earlier, in 9.1.1.B.3.f. it says "Suspension components shall not be mounted directly to any frame exterior panel (including, but not limited to body and anti-intrusion panels)." I'm assuming they wanted the same restriction to apply to composite panels contained completely within the frame, but they should add it to cockpit interior panel section.



You could use a number of very exotic (and expensive and hard to maintain) fastening methods, but the suspension would still be "mounted" to them. It doesn't say anything about the number or type of fasteners, you can't attach them AT ALL. Assuming the prohibition against mounting suspension to panels also applies to cockpit interior panels (which it should, in my opinion).

Also, you still need a full tube frame to meet the GCR roll cage requirements and the FF/FC specific requirements. That frame weighs quite a lot, so you're essentially proposing building two chassis, one within the other. It would not only be heavier than a tube frame, it would be bigger.

Interesting exercise, though!



The Van Diemen has a stressed panel (aluminum floor riveted and bonded to square tubes) under the engine bay. I've seen Citation bell housings that are bolted together and have plates that extend alongside the gearbox to reinforce it. The Radon has a bell housing that includes welded together panels. And there's the Piper bell housing. Why is it a stretch to call a 1/4" thick machined plate a "panel?" It meets every definition I've seen.

I'm not talking about anyone's opinion of what should be included in the rules, just what's included in those preliminary minutes for which the link is provided in the first post of this thread.

I'm not proposing two chassis, but that these rules allow multi-part chassis which could consist of a section from the main roll hoop to the front roll hoop that meet the requirement of the appropriate section of the GCR, and then a chassis section from the front roll hoop to the front bulkhead which could be made quite differently and which could negate essentially all the structural characteristics of steel tubes.

The VanDiemen can roll perfectly well without the engine bay floor pan. I guess it's there for lateral stiffness.

Here's a try at panel definition since it doesn't seem to be it the glossary of the GCR: Panels are made from sheet which for aluminum stop at 3ga. of 0.229" thick. For steel it's the same gauge but 0.239" Everything thicker than this is plate material.

I don't think there are cars out there that rely on materials as thin as sheet (or as you say, 1/4" thick plate) to provide the primary or only load path between the engine and transmission. My calipers may have been a little off the day I looked over a nice new Piper, but I'm pretty sure the plates that connect the engine to the tranny were more like 0.5 to 0.625 inches thick. (I really like the Piper bell housing/oil tank. Great way to avoid expensive tooling for low quantity production.)

[nulrich]

2. The FIA mandate panels are an update on the rules for the already extent anti-intrusion panel rules. Characterizing them as something that "clearly violates" the FF/FC rules is a little disingenuous, don't you think?

They violate the current rules in at least five ways:

1. The fasteners are too big (M8 when the rules allow a maximum of 1/4")
2. The washers are too big (30 mm while the rules allow a maximum of 1")
3. There are too many fasteners (12 minimum, 16 for F4 while the rules allow a maximum of 10)
4. The panels stiffen and strengthen the frame (a prohibited additional structural purpose)
5. The car will perform better with the panels installed (not to the same level or degree)

I would agree the current rules are contradictory, since FIA-type composite panels are seemingly allowed in one section then disallowed in another. That's one of the ambiguities and contradictions addressed in the CRB's proposed rules clarification.

[Wren]

They violate the current rules in at least five ways:

1. The fasteners are too big (M8 when the rules allow a maximum of 1/4")
2. The washers are too big (30 mm while the rules allow a maximum of 1")
3. There are too many fasteners (12 minimum, 16 for F4 while the rules allow a maximum of 10)

Yes, all things that could be updated to the SCCA rules (fewer fasteners, smaller washers, smaller bolts). Or some combination of the that and having the CRB update the rules.

4. The panels stiffen and strengthen the frame (a prohibited additional structural purpose)
5.The car will perform better with the panels installed (not to the same level or degree)

I am not sure if you really believe this or not, but for some reason I suspect that you do. I think that this is a perfect example of how everyone ended up in this situation. The fact that you could read the GCR and come to this conclusion is a pretty solid explanation of how you managed to accidentally build an illegal car.

I am 100% sure that a protest of the a panel mounted in the manner described in the GCR would result in a compliant ruling. As long as you can specifically point to a section of the GCR that allows something, you will be fine.

Yes, the wording needs work. But your proposed rules from the 2014 prelims is even worse. "Rolling" WTF?

That's one of the ambiguities and contradictions addressed in the CRB's proposed rules clarification.

This proposed rule is not a clarification. Where would you even get that idea? It is the biggest rules change since 1986. Even though the CRB let their name get put on it, I doubt that anyone believes that it came from them. After calling around, no one on the CRB will talk about it or take the blame for the rules. Given how poorly written they are and how they show a poor understanding of the GCR, my guess is that they came from you.

Everyone, posting here is a great way to try to understand the rules or interact with the writers of the rules. But, posts on here don't matter to the SCCA. If you don't want a new rule set that makes a lot of current cars illegal, then you need to go to the CRB website and write your letter. Your letter does not have to be more than a sentence or two.

www.crbscca.com

[alangbaker]

They violate the current rules in at least five ways:

1. The fasteners are too big (M8 when the rules allow a maximum of 1/4")
2. The washers are too big (30 mm while the rules allow a maximum of 1")
3. There are too many fasteners (12 minimum, 16 for F4 while the rules allow a maximum of 10)
4. The panels stiffen and strengthen the frame (a prohibited additional structural purpose)
5. The car will perform better with the panels installed (not to the same level or degree)

Yup. You have correctly identified that the specific details of the FIA's new anti-intrusion panel rules don't match up with the GCR, but that's quite different that implying that the GCR outlaws the very concept.

I would agree the current rules are contradictory, since FIA-type composite panels are seemingly allowed in one section then disallowed in another. That's one of the ambiguities and contradictions addressed in the CRB's proposed rules clarification.

And as far as stiffening and strengthening go, the GCR defines specific methods of attaching anti-intrusion panels legally. Those methods of attachment are therefore defined de jure as not being a method which performs an structural function. I agree the rules are written terribly well, but they aren't actually contradictory.

[reidhazelton]

It would really, really be nice if someone from the Radon side could factually address the opposition without resorting to name calling becoming of a 6 year old.

I guess when you cannot back up your side, resort to name calling and intentionally get the thread locked. Nice tactic.

Really, we need to see legitimate, intelligent points from the other side otherwise you will only have yourselves to blame when the rules don't get passed. If you want to have your side represented, I suggest you start doing so in a better way. This certainly does not make you look good.

[Wren]

In an attempt to get this thread back on the topic of the rules and the February 2014 minutes...

It seems that every side of this argument can agree on one thing: the rules for how the chassis must "perform" need some work.

Right now the rules say this:

Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and
anti-intrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or
installed in such a manner that they serve any structural purpose other
than that of anti-intrusion. In the absence of such panels the chassis
must be capable of performing to the same level or degree as when they
are installed.

How about something more like this:

"Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and
antiintrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or
installed in such a manner that they perform any function of the frame, to include: mounting running gear or bodywork or serve as the attachment point for any suspension pieces. In the absence of such panels the chassis
measurements(including camber, caster, track width, toe, wheelbase and ride height) must remain the same."

Please tear that to shreds. You won't hurt my feelings. Right off the bat, I can see that it would be weird to essentially say that "bodywork can't mount bodywork" That might be a huge problem for people who mount their sidepods to their chassis side panels.

[dc]

I'm in meetings all freakin' day and come back to my office to find another Radon flame war in progress. Again. I have no time to babysit right now, so I will have to sort it out later this evening. Until then, Both Matt and Wren are taking some time off today.

This has got to stop. I understand that there are parties involved with long-built animosity for whatever reason, but it absolutely will not continue here. This is the last Radon subject warning. If the conversation cannot stay civil and on-topic, the result will be instantaneous removal from ApexSpeed from ANYONE violating the forum rules. No more flame wars.




dc

[alangbaker]

It would really, really be nice if someone from the Radon side could factually address the opposition without resorting to name calling becoming of a 6 year old.

I guess when you cannot back up your side, resort to name calling and intentionally get the thread locked. Nice tactic.

Really, we need to see legitimate, intelligent points from the other side otherwise you will only have yourselves to blame when the rules don't get passed. If you want to have your side represented, I suggest you start doing so in a better way. This certainly does not make you look good.

Seconded.

[problemchild]

In an attempt to get this thread back on the topic of the rules and the February 2014 minutes...

It seems that every side of this argument can agree on one thing: the rules for how the chassis must "perform" need some work.

Right now the rules say this:



How about something more like this:

"Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and
antiintrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or
installed in such a manner that they perform any function of the frame, to include: mounting running gear or bodywork or serve as the attachment point for any suspension pieces. In the absence of such panels the chassis
measurements(including camber, caster, track width, toe, wheelbase and ride height) must remain the same."

Please tear that to shreds. You won't hurt my feelings. Right off the bat, I can see that it would be weird to essentially say that "bodywork can't mount bodywork" That might be a huge problem for people who mount their sidepods to their chassis side panels.

I think that defining performance in this context is much like determining intent. Not sure it can be done.

[DaveW]

I'm in meetings all freakin' day and come back to my office to find another Radon flame war in progress. Again. I have no time to babysit right now, so I will have to sort it out later this evening. Until then, Both Matt and Wren are taking some time off today.

This has got to stop. I understand that there are parties involved with long-built animosity for whatever reason, but it absolutely will not continue here. This is the last Radon subject warning. If the conversation cannot stay civil and on-topic, the result will be instantaneous removal from ApexSpeed from ANYONE violating the forum rules. No more flame wars.

dc

I am posting now, because I thought until Matt M. chimed in, there were some pretty on-topic and useful replies, from Wren, Nulrich, Steve L., and several others, being made. I think it would be a shame to shut this down when it appears to me to be somewhat productive.

[reidhazelton]

I think that defining performance in this context is much like determining intent. Not sure it can be done.

Agreed. However, perform in this case is more synonymous to "act in" or "have" rather than actually defining a performance advantage as with the "rolling" wording.

If someone mounts AI panels in the way the GCR or FIA spec says (GCR should change to reflect) then it really doesn't matter what the performance gain is. It makes it a moot point. Yes, there will be some minor stiffening, but that is ignored if they are mounted in accordance to the rules.

Nothing mounts to the AI panels. Done.

[reidhazelton]

I am posting now, because I thought until Matt M. chimed in, there were some pretty on-topic and useful replies, from Wren, Nulrich, and several others, being made. I think it would be a shame to shut this down when it appears to me to be somewhat productive.

+1

[alangbaker]

I think that defining performance in this context is much like determining intent. Not sure it can be done.

I wonder if you couldn't do something by defining a minimum weight for the car with the bodywork and anti-intrusion panels removed.

Combined with a limit on what materials can be used, you'd put a serious limit on the structural usefulness of the panels.

[nulrich]

It would really, really be nice if someone from the Radon side could factually address the opposition without resorting to name calling becoming of a 6 year old.

I guess when you cannot back up your side, resort to name calling and intentionally get the thread locked. Nice tactic.

Really, we need to see legitimate, intelligent points from the other side otherwise you will only have yourselves to blame when the rules don't get passed. If you want to have your side represented, I suggest you start doing so in a better way. This certainly does not make you look good.

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

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

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

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

Hi Reid. I don't know you, but I'm sure you're a great guy in person. Just not sure what the question was in your original post. I'd be glad to answer if you could articulate it for me.

Aside from me and Chris Camadella, no one from Radon has posted on this thread. Jimmy is a Radon owner but not otherwise associated with the company. Matt is...well....not entirely sure, but he's certainly not a representative of Radon!

I just read through every post I've put on this thread, and I'm sorry you don't find them intelligent but they seem legitimate and factual to me! Steve and I had what I considered an interesting and informative series of posts a bit earlier.

I'd be glad to answer any questions. Keep in mind I didn't write the rules clarification. They certainly aren't perfect, and I would suggest a couple of changes (and will in my letter to the CRB), but I do think they are a step in the right direction.

[reidhazelton]

I wonder if you couldn't do something by defining a minimum weight for the car with the bodywork and anti-intrusion panels removed.

Combined with a limit on what materials can be used, you'd put a serious limit on the structural usefulness of the panels.

BUT...I don't think you really need to. Build the panels from the spec materials, attach them how the GCR/FIA says you can, and don't mount anything to them and you are good to go. Right?

[nulrich]

How about something more like this:

"Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and
antiintrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or
installed in such a manner that they perform any function of the frame, to include: mounting running gear or bodywork or serve as the attachment point for any suspension pieces. In the absence of such panels the chassis
measurements(including camber, caster, track width, toe, wheelbase and ride height) must remain the same."

I think that's actually a pretty good start. I do think it's a lot of words to say a pretty simple thing (yes, I know you were working with a really wordy original rule). How about:

Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and anti-intrusion panels) shall not be used to mount running gear or suspension components. In the absence of such panels the camber, caster, track width, toe, wheelbase and ride height must remain the same within a tolerance of ± xx percent.

The measurements need a tolerance. I don't think it's as simple as, say, +/- 10%, unfortunately, since measurements like toe are often very small (1 mm or less). Maybe a tolerance on each individual measurement: "camber +/- .2 degree, track width +/- 5 mm" etc.

[reidhazelton]

Hi Reid. I don't know you, but I'm sure you're a great guy in person. Just not sure what the question was in your original post. I'd be glad to answer if you could articulate it for me.

Aside from me and Chris Camadella, no one from Radon has posted on this thread. Jimmy is a Radon owner but not otherwise associated with the company. Matt is...well....not entirely sure, but he's certainly not a representative of Radon!

I just read through every post I've put on this thread, and I'm sorry you don't find them intelligent but they seem legitimate and factual to me! Steve and I had what I considered an interesting and informative series of posts a bit earlier.

I'd be glad to answer any questions. Keep in mind I didn't write the rules clarification. They certainly aren't perfect, and I would suggest a couple of changes (and will in my letter to the CRB), but I do think they are a step in the right direction.

Of course, I didn't mean that to be all encompassing. Obviously Steve's, Jay's, Yours, Wren's, most of Jimmy's points, and others have added some good points and making it out to be that I intended EVERYONE'S post is "unintelligent and illegitimate" is misguided. Then to take me saying "Really, we need to see legitimate, intelligent points from the other side" and trying to make that sound like I said that "every post on this thread from the other side is unintelligent and illegitimate" is very disingenuous. You know what I was getting at in reference to Matt, and some of Jimmy's stuff and the history of this whole stupid thing. They are more personal attacks rather than responding to the points made by Wren, alangbaker, myself, and others, which are often ignored and glossed over. And yes, that is a two way street, but in the context of this thread that two way street is tilted to one side. You don't need to be paid by the company to be on the "Radon side".

There was no question in my original post, that is why you did not get it. This thread is is about a very, very poorly written rules package that was brought on by a lawsuit you initiated, to which my post reflected. My dog in the fight is that it seperates the FF/FC rules and makes a vary large amount of cars illegal, and I feel that is wrong to those who have been vested in either class for long before this whole thing started. I do have an interest in seeing mfg's being able to make a common chassis for three classes and spread the cost out. It benefits us all that don't want to make our own cars from a pile of tubes.

With that, whatever side you fall on, write you letters. That is what the thread is about.

[nulrich]

My dog in the fight is that it seperates the FF/FC rules and makes a vary large amount of cars illegal, and I feel that is wrong to those who have been vested in either class for long before this whole thing started.

I completely agree. I think it would be better if the FF and FC chassis rules were exactly the same. Even better if the FB chassis rules were, too, but I think that horse has left the barn.

As far as making cars illegal, I understand some cars (like Dave W's) would have their instrument panel mounting made illegal by application of the six-inch rule. That seems like a very minor problem that's easy enough to fix.

Nathan

[Parker]

I wonder if you couldn't do something by defining a minimum weight for the car with the bodywork and anti-intrusion panels removed.

Combined with a limit on what materials can be used, you'd put a serious limit on the structural usefulness of the panels.

I like where this is going. BUT, we need ideas about these limits on materials. Without the right limits, all the weight could be put into the belly pan and the AI or interior panels STILL could provide significant stiffness to the chassis.

I think that's actually a pretty good start. I do think it's a lot of words to say a pretty simple thing (yes, I know you were working with a really wordy original rule). How about:

Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and anti-intrusion panels) shall not be used to mount running gear or suspension components. In the absence of such panels the camber, caster, track width, toe, wheelbase and ride height must remain the same within a tolerance of ± xx percent.

The measurements need a tolerance. I don't think it's as simple as, say, +/- 10%, unfortunately, since measurements like toe are often very small (1 mm or less). Maybe a tolerance on each individual measurement: "camber +/- .2 degree, track width +/- 5 mm" etc.

This seems like a good specific rule, but it will be DESIGNED TO and that will take money and you can guarantee that the AI, exterior, or interior panels will be stressed. ALSO, this is a lot for a scrutineer to check to determine compliance. Counting fasteners, weighing, or looking for the presence of parts is MUCH more practical.

[alangbaker]

I completely agree. I think it would be better if the FF and FC chassis rules were exactly the same. Even better if the FB chassis rules were, too, but I think that horse has left the barn.

As far as making cars illegal, I understand some cars (like Dave W's) would have their instrument panel mounting made illegal by application of the six-inch rule. That seems like a very minor problem that's easy enough to fix.

Nathan

Actually, I don't think that instrument panels present any difficulty under any version of the rules...

...provided this language is still in there:

The chassis shall carry a mandatory floorpan, and may incorporate optional bulkhead panels on the main and dash hoops, the front bulkhead immediately ahead of the drivers feet, and any secondary bulkhead located forward of the front bulkhead. The optional bulkhead panels may be attached in the same manner as the requirements set forth for the floorpan.

[jimh3063]

I will say that the dialog between Nathan and Steve (You know guys who ACTUALLY build cars) is interesting and informative. Reading their dialog is a good use of my time because I learn. Arguing with Wren = bad use of time.

Jimmy

[DaveW]

Actually, I don't think that instrument panels present any difficulty under any version of the rules...

...provided this language is still in there:

The chassis shall carry a mandatory floorpan, and may incorporate optional bulkhead panels on the main and dash hoops, the front bulkhead immediately ahead of the drivers feet, and any secondary bulkhead located forward of the front bulkhead. The optional bulkhead panels may be attached in the same manner as the requirements set forth for the floorpan.

You are correct - that is still there in the January 2014 GCR (below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.1.1. Formula Car (FC/FF) Category Specifications
...
1. The chassis shall carry a mandatory floorpan, and may
incorporate optional bulkhead panels on the main and
dash hoops, the front bulkhead immediately ahead of the
drivers feet, and any secondary bulkhead located forward
of the front bulkhead. The optional bulkhead panels may
be attached in the same manner as the requirements set
forth for the floorpan.
----------------------------------------------------

[Dennis Valet]

I've been sitting on my boat thinking, this is a much better way to spend my time.

My reaction when I read that you're on your boat while I'm sitting in yet another freaking snow storm

[jimh3063]

Dennis:
It's been in the low 70's here. Not beach weather but nice enough to cruise the intracoastal. I have to head to Boston for a week tomorrow. Not looking forward to it.

Jimmy.

[BURKY]

Dennis:
It's been in the low 70's here. Not beach weather but nice enough to cruise the intracoastal. I have to head to Boston for a week tomorrow. Not looking forward to it.

Jimmy.

[Dennis McCarthy]

Jimmy,

Stay in Florida, I still have your cold from Sebring....

[Jnovak]

To me the key element is that we build and race safe cars and that we have a common set of chassis rules for all tube framed open wheel cars if at all possible.

I do not think this is impossible it simply needs some serious effort from some people in the know about chassis construction.

Perhaps now is the time for the SCCA (CRB) to form an ad hoc committee to formulate the new set of chassis rules.

[iamuwere]

Oh, Jay. There you go making sense.

[Daryl DeArman]

What is wrong with just going back to the 2012 rules?

Alternatively, constructors and competitors alike tend to favor congruency between various series rules', so what do the pro series rules look like? Why don't the SCCA Club rules align with the pro series rules?

[Tom Valet]

My reaction when I read that you're on your boat while I'm sitting in yet another freaking snow storm

Yeah well my reaction when I read that was: he's sitting on his boat in Easton, Pennsylvania in the middle of a blizzard? That dude is hard-core.