Reynard FCs will be illegal in SCCA

OK, I'm on a rant!

I'm casually reading the September Fastrack, and all the proposed rule changes that my friend Richard Pare has proposed for the FC class. You need to read it, it's very extensive.

In 25 words or less, it's a proposal by someone closely aligned with an existing FC chassis builder to change the rules so no "new guys" can play in the FC sandbox, and bring in some 21st century technology.

That's a lovely little battle that has been raging for more than a year behind the scenes. The ramifications may seriously effect the competitiveness of FC as a class to compete with classes such as FB, and FE for entries.

Everyone knows i'm an old coger that can't afford a modern car, so in a direct sense I have no dog in the hunt. Yeah, yeah, I know, I have been the technical director of the F2000 Championship Series for four years. (That little series that has a couple of races every few weeks with more fast FC cars than the Runoffs could dream of.) What do i know about FC? In the minds of some grayhairs, if you weren't around before 1984 (pick a date), you can't possibly understand the "intent" of FC rules. But, i do know what the intent of these proposed changes is. ;)

I know I pissed off a SCCA steward in 1969 when i was at a autocross and he ruled that my 1200 cc VW had to run in a prepared class because I had Lucas running lights on the front, and they weren't stock VW items... I knew one day I'd have to pay. The September Fasttrack must be the warning that that day is near.

Back to the lead story. I'm reading along and low and behold I read that '87 to '90 Reynard chassis will no longer be legal in SCCA FC, if Richard gets his way.

He proposes: [FONT=ArialMT]
[/FONT]"The chassis and all bulkheads shall be of steel tube and panel space-frame construction only."

UH OH, i say. The front bulkheads of our beloved Reynards are cast aluminum!

So, in a zealous attempt to prevent new makes coming into the class, let's exclude a few hundred older cars. Pure flippin' genius.

So folks, you better read the September Fastrack.

OK, I'm done ranting... for a few minutes.

I'm going back to reading this new proposal to see what else pisses me off.

Just to add my slant... who cars about SCCA? They are small fry in the world of racing in he USA anyway, #1 is NASCAR, #2 is ASA ... I run in ASA ;). I've always found the SCCA and their huge rule book along with way too many officials does nothing for me as a driver, that's why in the 70's and 80's I ran mostly IMSA, now I run ASA ProAutoSports - they actually care about the driver and they are actually growing in size.

Am I out to win a championship? No, I'm just out having fun. Is my series a national one? No. Am I SCCA member? Yes, only because I prepped and supported 3 vintage Porsche's at a SCCA event this year and needed the membership to be in the hot pit's (no one even checked, so a waste of $$). With less the 6 formula cars running in my SCCA region (lucky to see 3 FF, 1 FC & 1 FB or FV, maybe some FM's at an event) I don't see much reason to bother with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

Back to the lead story. I'm reading along and low and behold I read that '87 to '90 Reynard chassis will no longer be legal in SCCA FC, if Richard gets his way.

He proposes: [FONT=ArialMT]
[/FONT]"The chassis and all bulkheads shall be of steel tube and panel space-frame construction only."

UH OH, i say. The front bulkheads of our beloved Reynards are cast aluminum!

---

Two words for you: Grand Father.

And no, I'm not commenting on your age or codgerness. That rule applies to all new FF and FC cars. At least that's how I read it. No?

Grandfather... copout, i say. Appease the Reynard owners, so we can pass these changes...

So... it would be OK to use a modern technology (1986 version of modern) such as cast aluminum in the design of cars up to 2010, but heavens no, let's not allow any modern thinking in 2011?

Sounds like a cop out.

My oh my, what would be wrong with a new car with an aluminum bulkhead in 2011? If engineers say it's as strong as welding tubing, and it's homolagated, what are we afraid of?

Why all of a sudden the need to rewrite the chassis rules????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

So... it would be OK to use a modern technology (1986 version of modern) such as cast aluminum in the design of cars up to 2010, but heavens no, let's not allow any modern thinking in 2011?

---

bulkhead or no bulkhead, lets at least keep it a tube frame class. A cast bulkhead doesn't change that, but other things might.

i would rather see carbon fiber tubs/safety cells for all new formula cars going forward

doesn't have to be expensive...could have a world class manufacturer spit them off a mandrel all day long

just saying...

Try fixing one of those when you get home, there is nothing wrong with a well designed space frame in terms of safety, they just may weigh a little more. and while your rule change does not concern me over here ( it may mean we can get cheaper FC cars to import:ha:) but Froggy I do see where you are coming from, and if its self interest in terms of rewriting rules, its not a good look
Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by provamo

i would rather see carbon fiber tubs/safety cells for all new formula cars going forward

doesn't have to be expensive...could have a world class manufacturer spit them off a mandrel all day long

just saying...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

OK, I'm on a rant!


Back to the lead story. I'm reading along and low and behold I read that '87 to '90 Reynard chassis will no longer be legal in SCCA FC, if Richard gets his way.

He proposes:
"The chassis and all bulkheads shall be of steel tube and panel space-frame construction only."

UH OH, i say. The front bulkheads of our beloved Reynards are cast aluminum!

---

Frog,

As others have pointed out, this proposed rule covers new construction only.

Look on the bright side: your super lightweight trick aluminum bulkheads are grandfathered in, and give you a permanent performance advantage over those new, all-steel sluggards.

:p :p

John,

With all due respect. I think you missed my point.

If they were good enough to be legal in 1987, what is the reason to make them illegal on new cars in 2011?

What is the reason behind the rule change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

John,

With all due respect. I think you missed my point.

If they were good enough to be legal in 1987, what is the reason to make them illegal on new cars in 2011?

What is the reason behind the rule change?

---

I didn't miss your point. I was simply responding (tongue in cheek) to the way you framed it - as an attack on your classic Reynard.

If your real question is, why this change now, that's a valid question.

[FONT=Arial]With all due respect, just because the cars were built, raced and homologated does not necessarily mean that they were compliant with the GCR. Remeber, homolgation does not insure that the car is compliant. Given the age and circumstances if the car does not comply by other means they should be grandfathered in.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]Please consider the following:[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial](red is new language, green is old language being removed)[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]The chassis and all bulkheads shall be of steel tube and panel space-frame construction only. Forward-facing braces that protect the driver’s legs and feet shall extend from the front roll hoop to the front bulkhead. (The front bulkhead is defined as the transverse section of the frame immediately ahead of the pedals and drivers feet.) [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]Explanation:[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]SCCA rules on FF/FC chassis have always provided solely for a steel space frame. The bulkhead is defined as part of the frame in the existing FF rules (see the language stricken above which defines the front bulkhead as the transverse section of the frame.) Rule B.1 in FC states “chassis shall be of tubular steel construction”. Rule D.7.a in FF which governs FC construction states that “the chassis shall be of steel space-frame construction”. The new wording is simply a combination of both rules to keep the meaning as clear as possible that the only allowed construction is that of a steel tube space frame. The term "and panel" has been added since it is already common to reinforce the bulkheads with some steel sheet construction "gussets", etc. over and above the allowed bulkhead panels. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]Further, Rule 9.4.5.E.4 sets out roll cage material requirements. Such are defined as a minimum steel tubing size of 1.375 x .080. The roll cage is defined in 9.4.5 and includes a front and rear hoop. These hoops are both roll cage elements and thereby have to satisfy the material requirements of 9.4.5.E.4 [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]I hope that this helps, No need to panic. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]John[/FONT]

when you took the win at a National event in that vintage car earlier this year!

Can't you see what's happening here, Frogster?

You've got the other manufacturer's whippped into a lather with that win.
Now how the hell are they supposed to sell new cars to the masses (washed or otherwise), whole throngs ($5 word right there!) of which are clammoring ($buck fiddy) to buy into the latest techno trickery, when all of a sudden - WHAP! What what whaaaaaat?

It's all smoke and mirrors, no need to drop 60 large-ish on a new, ALL STEEL chassis, just do a Google Barn Search and hone in on those old, crusty and dusty Reynards out there, toss in a self built Kent, and whoop ass on all takers.

Like I said, ya shoulda been thinking about this crossing the line that day...

If we were to venture on with this "clarification" of FC rules, why not put all the FC rules clearly in the FC section and end this nonsense of having to flip back and forth between the FC and FF rules, with all the inherent exceptions, etc. Make the rules clear and easy to follow. It's easy to do this day and age, we have word processing, don't need to use carbon paper anymore.

If we are rewriting, then rewrite in clear English, and in one section.

Ranting on....

And what did barge boards do to offend someone? :) What is the reason for their illegality?
Vertical fences are OK. Strakes are OK. But barge boards are not? And lets not hear that it's to control costs. Not when a Runoffs winning FC a few years ago had 14 different airfoils attached to the car. (and OBTW, left impound as a legal car.)

So if i extend the floor out to the allowable width of the sidepod, say a foot ahead of the sidepod, and then attach a vertical fence on the outside edge... that would be legal? :confused: So... from now on my barge boards are to be called vertical fences. ;)

More rant...

Also, I have problems with the point made that a car can be homolagated by SCCA in Topeka to be allowed in the class, yet it be not compliant with the GCR. Something is very stupid about that situation. If that is the case, why have homolagation at all? it's just a waste of the competitor's money and time. Does anyone else see a problem with that?

This 'rewrite effort' is all starting to look like a County Zoning Meeting. The folks that got in early with their waterfront homes are now petitioning the zoning department to not allow anymore development.

YMMV

Let me make one thing perfectly clear.

The guys trying hard to clarify these dang rules are stand up guys. I think they are some of the best guys in the club. All of very high integrity.

I have very high respect for Richard Pare. He has helped me in racing more than I could ever reimburse him. He is wiser and smarter than most. Always willing to take time to help and explain. Steve Osteth is also a class act. As are all the others (whos names i do not yet know) that were on the committee.

These guys have volunteered a lot of time to try to fix what appeared to be a problem. Richard has been trying to make progress since back in 2000. He is dedicated.

I fear if we (I) badger the guys trying hard to help, maybe they will quit helping, and others will decide not to jump in to help. That would be a bad thing.

A dilemma in a club, is that it is a club, and not a kingdom. The members that care, really care. The majority don't give a rip. And the ones that care about FC rules, as it stands to reason, are the ones building FC cars. So there will always appear to be some unavoidable controversy.

I apologize if I have offended any. It was not my intention.

But, like the 9th grade English teacher, if you turn in a paper, don't expect me not to critique it. ;)

Frog, I'm a Reynard-lover, too, and I've got concerns about the proposed language. I've always been concerned when I hear "It will be grand-fathered," because it's possible for the intent to become lost as time passes on (or tech inspectors don't read the fine print).

Homologation is something else. The homologation process looks at only a small part of the car--usually chassis. It is also only a snapshot in time. Many cars are either modified or repaired after the homologation certificate is received, and sometimes these make the cars non-compliant. Examples are replacing roll hoop bracing with thin-wall or ERW tubing or sneaking 6" rims where they are supposed to be 5 1/2" (FF).

I'm more concerned about the requirement to run the forward roll hoop brace to the front bulkhead. Reynards stopped about 4" short of the bulkhead. Does the proposed change prevent such designs? I understand the objective of the proposed rule, but just how much of a problem are we trying to prevent? How many injuries would this change prevent...

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

Larry,

The homolagation issue that scares me is that the car could be homolagized in Topeka, built perfectly to plan, unchanged since homolagation, it shows up at a track, and some butthead (wearing a purple shirt) that calls himself a national scrutineer rules the homolagated part illegal. :(

Obviously, we will have to grandfather in the old cars.

A very slight concern would be that we declare the brace going forward to the bulkhead must be for "safety". Then some insurance twit sees cars running (e.g. Reynards) that don't have that feature, and raises the club's rate to handle the added risk that we ourselves defined.

I do believe that forward brace is a great rule. Just ask anyone who has had a footwell collapse.

At some point in the past was there not some sort of wording in the GCR to the effect that Reynards of a certain vintage were required to have a certain part number cast front bulkhead?

I'm working from memory, but the verbage stated that the 1987 Reynard bulkhead casting must be L-155, which is a particular alloy. Earlier units were from a different alloy, and had the disturbing habit of cracking. This is (was) a perfect example of problems within the GCR. First, it addressed a specific year, and the L-155 alloy was therefore not required in subsequent years. Second, the requirement was dropped after several years. Third, inspectors had nothing to guide their knowledge of whether the alloy was L-155, unless they knew to look for the L-155 casting mark on the front of the bulkhead. Fourth, I saw a Reynard with a fabricated replacement for the casting. Was it legal if the GCR REQUIRED that the bulkhead be L-155?

Larry Oliver

Just read the proposal in detail.

I think that my 1990 citation would not be legal under this proposal as the front bulkhead / pedal mount incorporates a large aluminum casting or heavily machined shape.

I do not think that this was Richards intention.

Perhaps we should get clarification from Richard before attacking things.

I know him to be a stand up and very smart guy and let's get his clear intent before passing judgment.

I believe there is a much broader issue at stake here. It is imperative to send your cards and letters to the CRB.

We can all chew on this here on the forum, and we should, because what is being presented here could change the face of SCCA because of the world of unintended consequences.

I think it is important that SCCA members, and specifically members who will be affected by this proposal, understand where it is coming from, why it was submitted, by whom, and all aspects of what it will do to the FC class in the future.

I'm clearly not finished yet, but that will be for future posts.

Frog;

There was a time in SCCA when a car could be legal in one division and not legal in another division. That really was the case in the late '60s early '70s.

That thing on the front of your frame looks a lot like a bracket to me. Not unlike LaRue's car. There the front suspension pickups, steering rack, master cylinders and ARB all are mounted to an aluminum bracket that attaches to the frame.

Your frame and every one else's is primarily a steel tube structure. That is what the rules are trying to clarify and preserve. The intent is to make sure that new cars continue to be tube frames as the current cars are. The design competition here should be to do a better job using the tube frame concept, not introducing different technologies to surplant the tube frame.

Topeka can not necessarly be relied upon to keep new cars compliant with the rules as time has established. We could be on the verge of transitioning to composite tubs if we don't "clarify the rules". Now if that is what the majority wants then lets have that discussion.

By the way Frog, thank you for your contrubutions to the health of FC. It is guys like you and everyone else involved with this class that makes it what it is. A guy you know once told me that each class gets the rules they want. And after years of this I will say that it is often a battle to get the rules right.

Bob, out of curiousity how does the proposed rewrite ' change the face of SCCA' as you write ? Not a single car that is currently running is fundamentally altered. Sure It looks like I have to remove Kevlar anti intrusion panels but big deal. All it does is clarify that all constructors are building to same rules, atleast in SCCA. I do suspect there will now be different rules in other series.

First to Steve Lathrop every comment you made I agree with. Intelligently expressed and to the point.
As for the proposal itself I really can't believe this BS. Yes I have a dog in this fight I have had quite a few Reynards and have won Regioal Championships with them. ANYBODY REMEMBER LAST YEARS RUNOFFS TRY THAT ACCIDENT WITH SOME OTHER CARS.Should that not prove the integrity of design so leave it alone! I presently own 3 FC Carbirs incl. one I just got Homologation papers for finally after the SCCA took months to issue it and had to give me a 2 race waiver to run the car. What's the point all of them have CNC alum. bulkheads. Hasn't there been enough lunacy with the whole Zetec issue. But no we have to keep picking the scab? Collectively we know better than this for our 'normal' jobs but not as a club? Come on.
Yeah I know geez Jim tell me how you really feel. Doug don't ban me. I have lived long enough to see some pretty tough stuff like seeing the drivers leg literally being used as the fulcrum for the pry bar to get him out of the car. If you think I'm kidding I'll give you his name. Steel bulkhead car!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

John,

With all due respect. I think you missed my point.

If they were good enough to be legal in 1987, what is the reason to make them illegal on new cars in 2011?

What is the reason behind the rule change?

---

OK - Time to quit tip-toeing.

Wouldn't have anything to do with the Radon chassis, would it?

I am not entirely clear on the intent for the new wording but the Reynard owners who are interpreting that their cars will be illegal based on their front casting need to look no farther than the back end of any VD or Swift made in the last 25 years to see a very similar casting that could be seen as the same thing.

Jim

The thread title is very inflammatory and misleading. The new rule proposal is obviously intended to protect the competitiveness of older cars. Of course, SCCA wants to keep older cars viable!

The issue is where future design and technology application will take the class. It is a struggle that all traditional classes must deal with .... usually with two groups who have totally different visions for the future of the class they love. Tough road ahead!

Does this also eliminate ceramic wheel bearings?

Quote:

---

General Restrictions

The use of carbon fiber and/or Kevlar reinforcement, titanium, ceramic, high strength composites and similar materials is prohibited, unless specifically permitted. The use of the word “unrestricted” in any section does not indicate their allowance.

---

What's the real scoop of why this is coming about? I am assuming the Radon chassis. How can we weigh in with comments here or to the CRB without the real background?

Where can we read the intent of the rule change? I'm kinda hoping Richard Pare (or someone) will come here and post, "The reason we proposed the change was because ... Our goal is to ...".

I tend to agree with Greg's post above. I highly doubt this proposal will result in some 1980's chassis being turned away from SCCA races.

your love/hate letters can no longer be submitted to crb@scca.com you must now use a form they setup to submit them.

[FONT="Verdana"]The SCCA has implemented a new letter submission and tracking system,
and is no longer accepting letters at this email address. The new
system will reduce the time required to process letters, allow you to
track your letter, and give you the opportunity submit your email
address for direct notification from the Club Racing Board.

Please go to www.crbscca.com to submit your letter.[/FONT]

I just got off an hour long phone call with Richard.

The intent is not to make Reynards illegal.

In fact we had a long discussion of the fact that a steel bulkhead has been at least implicitly required in the GCR forever. The Reynards are legal because their bulkhead is interperted to be the steel tube connecting the bottom frame rails at the front of the frame. The intent is to keep it that way, not to require reengineering of already existing cars.

We also discussed that the Reynard with the cast aluminum bracket is in fact quite a safe structure. The ones that I referred to in an earlier post had the bracket cast of mag and on impact we all knows what mag does.

We also talked that there would probably have to be some cars grandfathered in.

The intent is that going forward new cars would need to have a full steel tube bulkhead.

Mr. Frog, did you have a bad day yesterday? I have alaways found you to be cool calm and collected and one who finds out the facts before responding.

May be a dumb question but if I convert a DB-6 from FC to FF is it a new car?

D72b chassis braces in cockpit area go from the same material as the roll hoop, to the same stress/strength?

Frog, Aren't you proud of how I've tried to be non confrontational?:kiss:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Demeter

The intent is that going forward new cars would need to have a full steel tube bulkhead.

---

What was Richard afraid would happen if the rule remained as is? In other words, what is the risk (what are the possible consequences) if the change is not approved?

Just curious, & trying to help illuminate the discussion.

The saddest thing about Grandfathers is they die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim morgan

May be a dumb question but if I convert a DB-6 from FC to FF is it a new car?

---

Jim,
Yes, you have to have it re-homologated, basically send them the money.

John,

Do you think it would be grandfathered if these new rules were in effect or should I rush to covert before it becomes worthless.

Man - I may have to renew my SCCA membership after all... This one is going to be good

I heard the new mygale has a carbon bell housing, the Firman has zylon bodywork and the Radon has some kind of cable paddle shifter on a 5 speed LD200 that shifts .03 of a second faster than a steel rod....Sorry - just trying to cunfuse the issue more - none of that is true..... But it is the fault of George Bush

So wheel bearings are out and Comprents intrusion panels are out.... I'm sure the research is out there for the cars that will need a hall pass - that should be made clear IF this rule is written....not as "all cars before 2011 are allowed". And it should not be up to the owner to report - it should be written into the rule proposal to start with.... Not some knee jerk hodge podge to 80 spy pictures (no offense to you directly Mr Pare)


That is about as neutral as I can be........AND - I have no dog in this hunt....

Just call me Art.

I have been told that the proposal in Fastrack is only a clarification of existing rules, not a rewrite, nor change to the rules.

If so... then in Paragraph B.2. of the FC Chapter; Where in the hell did "Kevlar reinforcement is permitted." come from? :confused: Looks like a new rule to me. Can't find anything like that in the 2010 GCR. Bogus

Back to this bulkhead deal. (i know its boring for most of you. Unless you just spent a few hundred grand building a new car)

On most FC cars (not Tatuus nor Carbir) there are longitudinal tubes that extend back through the engine bay and attach to an aluminum or magnesium bulkhead commonly known as a bellhousing. But it is obviously a chassis bulkhead.

The new rule says: D7.a.
The chassis and all bulkheads shall be of steel tube and panel space-frame construction only.

So... do we need to go back to being like old 70s FFs with a steel tubing frame around the bellhousing? Or, does that rule need to be clarified to say all bulkheads from the rollhoop forward?

It appears that at least since 1987 two of the four most common bulkheads in FC cars have been allowed to be non-ferrous. Why the sudden need to change that?

Back to the boring subject of Reynard front bulkheads, and a few Citations also...

Apparently ol' Adrian was a great salesman and got it approved through Denver way back when. Somehow in 20 plus years it has never been overturned. I would say that is one strong precident.

If these aluminum front bulkheads are truly illegal, then Topeka should man up and ban the cars. If they are truly unsafe, same thing, man up and ban them. If those two things are not the case, then I say the precident rules after 20 some years, and non-ferrous bulkheads (at least at the front, and rear) should continue to be legal. They are either legal, and safe, or not.

OBTW, IMHO, Grandfathering in the old cars is a political cop out. :blackflag:

As the 9th grade English teacher told me, "Good start, but you really need to go back and work on it more.

Note to Runoffs VD entrants: All you guys with Comprent's anti-intrusion panels you have had installed for a while, better think about snatchin' those suckers out before you get to impound. :meatball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

The new rule says: D7.a.
The chassis and all bulkheads shall be of steel tube and panel space-frame construction only.

So... do we need to go back to being like old 70s FFs with a steel tubing frame around the bellhousing? Or, does that rule need to be clarified to say all bulkheads from the rollhoop forward?

---

I've been waiting patiently for someone to ask that question from the moment I read the proposal ;).