The rules proposal

Now that the hysteria initially displayed after the publication of the rules re-write has died down to a more reasonable tone – hopefully indicating that people have finally actually spent the time to read over and analyze what was proposed – I’ve decided that it is now worth my time to explain a bit of the whats, wheres and whys.

History:

Over the last 25 years, we have watched the rules get modified many times – sometimes for the better, but mostly for the worse. Many “clarifications” have been worded so badly that they actually resulted in changing the actual meaning of the rule – something that as per the GCR, is not allowed to happen, and could actually be invalidated if an argument were to be presented with the proper paperwork.

This has, over the years and with changes in personnel, made the deciphering of what the rules actually allow and disallow pretty damned difficult, even to us who have been at it for 20, 30, or 40 years or more, with the predictable result being that people keep trying “new” ideas that were rejected as illegal many years before.

It was high time that this problem got rectified.

I actually started on some of this process back around ’94, and got a couple of problems fixed. What was missing was a total rewrite (and especially the desire to do it), and the co-operation of the CRB.

In ’99, after talks with other manufacturers and many older competitors, I did submit a total rewrite, but the CRB rejected it for lack of time.

A few years more passed (until 2009) and the makeup of the CRB and BoD shows itself to be more amenable to considering such a rewrite.

The first step was taken last year with the rewrite of the Bodywork section, with the task initially assigned by the CRB to the Advisory Board, after which I was asked if I would lend a hand. Subsequently, a CRB member, myself, and others all put in a lot of hours over many, many days (a couple of months actually) on the wording necessary to properly convey what we all understood the rules to mean, yet not make illegal any older cars that might be a bit close to the edge, AND at the same time allow plenty of room for development. We even spoke some about the frame bottom rules issues and whether or not to try to tackle that at the same time, with the final decision being that tackling the general construction sections was best left to another time.

The bodywork rewrite passed with nary an eyebrow raised.

Come this early spring (early April) and I get asked once again to start looking at the general construction rules to see what could be done to clarify them better. With my workload already at maximum, it took a couple of weeks for me to ask the same CRB member about how he thought the CRB would respond. With an answer that it might just fly, I started on what I could fit within my schedule, knowing that it was entirely possible that it might not make the deadline for consideration for this year.

We made the deadline with only a few hours to spare, and once looked over and re-written a bit by the Formula and Sports Car Advisory Board committee, it got presented to the CRB, accepted, and published in Fastrack. Unfortunately, what got published is not the exact last draft – there were so many drafts floating about that it was pretty easy to lose track – but it is pretty close to what the last draft stated, and what needs to be “fixed” are mostly minor nit-picking type points (though valid nevertheless) that can be done before final passage, assuming that it passes.

Since the publication in Fastrack, a few more nit-picking word changes have been agreed upon as needed, and will be probably included in the final version that get presented to the BoD.

Purpose of the Rewrite:

The purpose of the rewrite is solely to bring the wording in the GCR closer to what the rules are actually supposed to mean as understood by the manufacturers (most of whom have been building cars to these rules for 30+ years, and actually wrote the ’86 and previous years rules), and to make it clearer to those whom do not have the advantage of many years of experience in just what “the angle of the dangle” might actually mean.

The practical result of the rewrite is that the rules have not been “changed”, only made much more clear as to the intent and the limits as understood by the long-time manufacturers and knowledgeable Club officials.

Every manufacturer that I have spoken to (meaning almost all of them), agrees that the new wording is pretty faithful to what they understand rules actually mean and what has been accepted as the allowed practice over the years – and many have actually thanked me for undertaking the risks associated with doing so. A couple would actually like to see the frame bottom rules tightened even further. I think that horse has already been out of the barn for too many years and too many cars for any further tightening there, but you never know.

Assuming that the wording we have chosen does its intended purpose, what you, the Club members and class competitors, will have is a more easily understood baseline from which to work.

From this more easily understood baseline, you can then propose and make changes as deemed necessary and proper to allowable new construction and design features as materials and manufacturing methods evolve. There are a lot of good ideas out there that I think most people would agree are ready to be added to the classes, BUT, they need to be added in a properly controlled manner.

Interpreting the GCR and class “intent” :

There is “intent” in every set of car class rules, and for anyone to attempt to state otherwise is only kidding themselves and ignoring both history and reality.

Even if the “intent” is tough or impossible to discern from what is written, for FF you have 40 years of 100+ car designs to look at, all designed to basically the same “intent” philosophy. If it is possible to build, it’s probably been tried at one time or another, so the claims of “new and innovative” designs is rarer than hens teeth, and usually BS brought about by the designer having no in-depth knowledge about what’s gone on before.

For FF, the intent has always been to provide a (relatively) inexpensive entry-level flat-bottomed formula car, with an absolute minimum of aero freedom. Compared to our friends across the pond, we have a ton of aero freedom in FF – you need to read their rules sometime!

F2000 was conceived as a low level flat bottomed winged car based on FF construction rules – hence the early moniker of “Super Ford” and the referencing in FC of the FF construction rules. The idea was to try to save construction costs by being able to use the same chassis, suspension, and most of the same bodywork, as well as allow the purchaser to be able to start off in FF and upgrade to F2000 later if he/she wished.

These basic “intents” that the manufacturers have abided by have given you guys a pretty damned stable formula to compete by for a long time, without the risk that your car could be obsolete overnight.

Interpretation:

For both classes, the Clubs desire has always been that the rules be interpreted “conservatively” – meaning that while you may want to try “turning a rule on its head” by attempting the opposite of what is stated as a restriction, most likely in a well researched protest you will lose, and if you don’t lose, the Club will them “fix” the rule so as to make what you tried stated as illegal. It has happened many times in the past, and will most assuredly happen again sometime in the future – costing somebody a lot of $$$ as a result.

It is some of these forced “fixes” over the years that have made the rules such a mess.

Basically, it’s a big risk to step out too far from what is visually and technically the accepted limits – FF and FC are not open wheel versions of DSR.

I would suggest the you re-read the opening sentences in both the FF and FC rules where it states that these are Restricted classes, and ponder a bit on what that might mean.

While to some this may seen overly restrictive, - especially to those of us who have a lot of fun in dreaming up new stuff to try - the reality is that (almost) any current design car in either class will still easily outrun a car from 20 and 30 years ago, but will only just outrun a car that is only a few years old, with the additional benefit to those on really tight budgets that many slightly older cars can still be somewhat easily modified to still run at the front in most races.

Where the classes go from here is up to you guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

Every manufacturer that I have spoken to (meaning almost all of them), agrees that the new wording is pretty faithful to what they understand rules actually mean and what has been accepted as the allowed practice over the years

---

Not true. Richard, you and I have spoken, and discussed the rules in detail during the recent four hour long constructor's meeting, and I do not agree with your interpretation nor your attempt to make the biggest change (by far) in the FF/FC rules in at least 25 years.

Elan/Van Diemen participated in the meeting and, at least publicly, did not support your rules change, they just want a clear resolution one way or another.

Doug Learned from Piper, Ralph Firman/David Baldwin from RFR, and Steve Lathrop from Citation all publicly agreed, but their cars are not made illegal by your rules change.

Just for the record, Radon Sport does not support your rules change, especially since it specifically targets our car and makes it illegal. And, by the way, we have sold more FC cars this year than Piper, RFR, and Citation combined.

Nathan

Let me clarify that wording then: Manufacturers who have actually had homologated cars running within the club during the last 25 or more years, which includes RFR. Your company is not in that category as yet.

You may wish to believe and promote the idea that this rewrite targets your car, but as with your interpretation of the rules, history does not support that premise - your car did not even exist as a glimmer in your eye when I first started this process almost 15 years ago.

I will not argue or debate with you at all on any of this any further.

Do you wish to "clarify" your erroneous statement or "change" it? ;)

Just so everyone can see for themselves, here is the chassis section from the 1985 FCS:

Quote:

---

[FONT=Verdana]7.6 Chassis/Frame[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]
[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]The chassis is defined as the frame. It must be a steel space frame. Monocoque-type structures are prohibited.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]

Sheet material affixed to the frame by welding, bonding or riveting, or by bolts or screws which are located closer than six-inch centers, are defined as stress-bearing panels.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]

The undertray, for safety reasons, shall be a stress-bearing panel. Its curvature must not exceed one inch. The mountings for brake and clutch pedals and cylinders, and for the instrument panel and the bulkhead (panel) behind the driver may be stress-bearing. No other stress-bearing panels are permitted.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]

Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components and body panels may be non-ferrous, of any shape and fastened to the frame in any manner.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]

Gussets are defined as of steel, fastened to a maximum of two members, and are specifically permitted.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]

The firewall portion of the bulkhead (panel) must extend the full width of the cockpit and be as high as the top of the carburetor. Forward facing air ducts may be installed for the purpose of delivering air directly to the engine area. Air duct openings may be located within the cockpit provided the firewall is extended to prevent flame and debris from reaching the driver. (Any shape may be used to form firewall extension.)
All firewall inlets must prohibit passage of flame and debris.[/FONT]

---

Here are the rules as revised for 2010:

Quote:

---

D.7. Chassis/Frame
Formula Ford 1986 construction requirements as of January 1, 1986 as revised January 1, 2010. All new Formula Ford cars are to be built to these specifications covered in D.6 and D.7. (Also required for Formula Continental.)

a. The chassis shall be of steel space-frame construction. Forward facing braces that protecting the driver’s legs and feet shall extend from the front roll hoop to the front bulkhead (The front bulkhead is defined as the transverse section of the frame immediately ahead of the pedals and drivers feet.) The soles of the driver’s feet shall not extend beyond the front edge of the wheel rims (in normal position; (i.e., pedals not depressed) and shall remain behind the front bulkhead. The lower main frame rails shall be a minimum of 25 centimeters (9.84 inches) apart (inside dimension) from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop. Monocoque-type structures are prohibited.

A stress bearing floor pan constructed from a minimum of .060 inch heat treated aluminum sheet or 18 gauge steel sheet is required. At a minimum, it shall extend from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. Its curvature shall not exceed one inch. The floor pan may be constructed in multiple sections.

The front bulkhead, forward roll hoop (dash hoop) bulkhead and main hoop bulkhead may also utilize stress-bearing panels. No other stress-bearing panels are allowed.

Stress-Bearing Panel Definition: Any sheet material that is attached to the frame by welding, bonding, riveting, threaded fasteners, or any combination thereof, the centers of which are located closer than 6 inches. No materials other than aluminum or sheet steel are allowed for use as stress-bearing panels. Stabilized materials (honeycomb) are not permitted as stress-bearing panels.

b. The area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the front roll hoop bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead shall be protected by one of the following methods to prevent the intrusion of objects into the cockpit.

1. Panel(s), minimum of either .060 inch heat treated aluminum (6061-T6 or equivalent) or 18 gauge steel, attached to the outside of the main frame tubes. No other material types will be allowed for these panels.

2. Reinforced body - at minimum, consisting of two layers of 5 ounce, bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame. (5 layers are highly recommended.)

For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than 6 inch centers (no stress-bearing panels). The material used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material.

c. A firewall(s) that seals the drivers’ compartment (cockpit) and the engine compartment is required. Forward facing ducts may be installed to delivering air directly to the engine compartment. Air duct openings may be located within the cockpit provided the firewall
is extended to prevent the passage of flame and debris from reaching the driver.

d. Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels, may be non-ferrous, of any shape, and attached to the frame in any manner.

e. Impact Attenuators: See GCR 9.4.5.G.

f. No engine oil or water tubes are allowed within the cockpit, except for shielded (stainless steel braid) mechanical oil pressure lines. Chassis tubes shall not be used as oil or water transport tubes.

---

Here are Richard's proposed new rules (I understand they may have been corrected somewhat, but I haven't been provided with a copy):

Quote:

---

General Restrictions

a. 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.

b. The use of materials other than those specified in section 9.1.1.D.a above for seals, bearing and bearing liners, thread locking systems, windscreens, mirrors, instruments, wiring, electronic systems, electrical systems, cooling, hydraulic and oil systems, etc., is permitted.
...
D.7 Chassis/Frame

Formula Ford 1986 construction requirements as of January 1, 1986 as revised January 1, 201x. All new Formula F and FC cars are to be built to the specifications covered in D.7 and D.8. Exceptions specific to FC are stated in the FC rules.

a. The chassis and all bulkheads shall be of steel tube and panel space-frame construction only.

The soles of the driver’s feet shall not extend beyond the front edge of the wheel rims (in normal position; (i.e., pedals not depressed) and shall remain behind the front bulkhead. The lower main frame rails shall be a minimum of 25 centimeters (9.84 inches) apart (inside dimension) from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop.

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 vertical and transverse section of the frame immediately ahead of the pedals and drivers feet. This does not preclude a secondary forward bulkhead ahead of this “front” bulkhead.)

Further reinforcement of the frame structure shall be in accordance with the allowances specifically stated herein. No other methods of reinforcement will be allowed. No panels or components other than the required and optional load bearing panels may be attached to the chassis for structural purposes.

The chassis shall carry a mandatory load-bearing floorpan, and may incorporate optional load-bearing bulkhead panels on the main and dash hoops and the front bulkhead immediately ahead of the driver’s feet. The optional bulkhead panels may be attached in the same manner as the floorpan fastening and use the same material requirements.

At a minimum, the floorpan shall extend from the rear main hoop bulkhead to the front bulkhead. Floorpan material is restricted to heat treated aluminum alloy, minimum thickness .060 inch, and/or steel sheet, minimum 18 gauge.

At a minimum, the floorpan shall be attached to the chassis lower rails at or adjacent to its full perimeter by any combination of welding, bonding, riveting, or bolting. The centers between any two adjacent fasteners shall be no more that 6 inches apart. The floorpan may not “wrap up” on to the chassis sides to any point above the top surface of the lower main frame rails.

The floorpan may be constructed in more than one section. For its entire length, the floorpan shall consist of substantially flat panel(s) in plane(s) approximately parallel to the ground plane (not counting chassis “rake”). In addition, “stepped” or sloped floorpans ahead of the dash hoop are permitted, however, the maximum vertical distance from the point of attachment to the base of the main hoop to the point of attachment at the front bulkhead shall be 25.4mm (1 inch).

b. The area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the front roll hoop bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead shall be protected by at least one of the following methods to prevent the intrusion of objects into the cockpit.

1. Panel(s): minimum of either .060 inch heat treated aluminum (6061-T6 or equivalent) or 18 gauge steel, securely attached to the outside of the main frame tubes. No other material types will be allowed for these panels.

2. Reinforced body: at a minimum, consisting of a minimum of two layers of 5 ounce, bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame. (5 or more layers are highly recommended.)

The steel tubes used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material (equal or greater material stress area and yield strength).

c. A firewall(s) that seals the drivers’ compartment (cockpit) from the engine compartment is required. Forward facing ducts may be installed to deliver air directly to the engine compartment. Air duct openings may be located within the cockpit provided the firewall is extended to prevent the passage of flame and debris from reaching the
driver.

d. Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels, may be metal, of any shape, and attached to the frame in any manner.

e. Instruments may be mounted in non-metallic panels (e.g., composite or plastic) securely affixed to the dash bulkhead.

f. Impact Attenuators: See GCR 9.4.5.G. Additional attenuators are highly recommended.

g. No engine oil or water tubes are allowed within the cockpit, except for shielded (stainless steel braid) mechanical oil pressure lines. Chassis tubes shall not be used as oil or water transport tubes.

---

Is this really a "rules clarification?"

Nathan

Most of you out there in Apexspeed reader land know me. For those that don’t, a brief background. I have been involved in racing since the 60’s, been racing actively in FC since 1998, competed in the Runoffs in 2005, am an active national scrutineer, and for over 4 years have been the Technical Director of the F2000 Championship Series.

Since the last Fastrack appeared with proposal #2228 I have spent 4 weeks talking to people all over the country, attending meetings as far away as Wisconsin, but most of all reading the current GCR and it’s older versions. Richard Pare has through emails pointed the way for me to navigate through the GCR.

Realizing last night that this issue was probably going to be ruled on very soon in order to fit into deadlines defined by the rules process, I decided it was time for me to write to the CRB and submit my opinion.

I voted a complete NO to this proposal.

My reasons are as follows:

1. I believe this proposal is more than a rules clarification, and in fact in some cases a rule change.

2. I believe I am very much in touch with the active FC community, and I have sensed no demand since January from the active racers for this rewrite or any rewrite.

3. This proposal contains something like 800 words and yet it is expected for the community to act on it in a period of approximately 30 days. But, more importantly a period of 30 days that encompasses the Runoffs, when many serious competitors and officials are competing for the National Championship and don’t need the distraction of the rules change to consider.

4. If we are going to rewrite these tangled rules, it needs to be done better. As I stated before this proposal is just another patch upon an already patched quilt of rules.

5. I seriously believe that the FF and FC rules should be de-coupled to aid in clear understanding. This proposal does not do that.

6. Richard’s hard work will not be wasted if it is tabled and used as the beginning for a comprehensive rewrite. If Richard’s ideas are good, they will stand the test of time.

7. Now almost 4 weeks after the original proposal surfaced in Fastrack, we are being told it is the wrong draft and other changes need to be made, with only days before the next CRB meeting. We should be voting on whatever the true document is, not the mistaken one in the last Fastrack.

I’m asking all my friends, that even if they agree with Richard, to vote at least to table this for more time to consider such a serious proposal.

As always, your mileage may vary.
Thank you for your attention.

Mike Eakin aka Purple Frog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

your car did not even exist as a glimmer in your eye when I first started this process almost 15 years ago.

---

Mr. Pare,

As a newcomer to the sport, I appreciate the effort you have put into the club to make it what you apparently believe to be "better." However, if this process was indeed started 15 years ago, it would seem to me that the cream didn't exactly rise to the top. What you are claiming was the intent by the founders many years ago may not have been adequately conveyed, but your "clarification" at this point constitutes a dramatic departure from what the current rules actually say. Otherwise, a rewrite would not be necessary and current designs would not become illegal. 15 years is a very, very, very long time to actually get this on the table. The horse is out of the barn now & it cannot be called a giraffe just because you say it was meant to be such a very long time ago.

Again I respect your opinion and efforts (yet expect the flaming to begin). We all have the right to submit such requests to the CRB, as I understand the process. It should be just that simple. If it doesn't "take" the first few times, perhaps there is a reason for that and the idea should be allowed to die gracefully.

Respectfully,
Darrin Teeter

1. I believe this proposal is more than a rules clarification, and in fact in some cases a rule change.

The original writers of the rules do not seem to agree with that assessment. What has been pretty well proven by the responses by so many people is that they truly have no understanding of just what the Club has intended the classes to be.

2. I believe I am very much in touch with the active FC community, and I have sensed no demand since January from the active racers for this rewrite or any rewrite.

Not true - go back an reread all the posts from the start of the FF Underground bitching about the lack of clarity in the rules - never mind all of my (and others) posts about the perceived loopholes that an ignoring of the "intent" would seemingly allow. Unfortunately, very few racers actually get involved with fixing the rules that they bitch about.


3. This proposal contains something like 800 words and yet it is expected for the community to act on it in a period of approximately 30 days. But, more importantly a period of 30 days that encompasses the Runoffs, when many serious competitors and officials are competing for the National Championship and don’t need the distraction of the rules change to consider.

I would have no problem with the proposal being delayed a year, but that is up to the CRB and BoD.


5. I seriously believe that the FF and FC rules should be de-coupled to aid in clear understanding. This proposal does not do that.

Not within the scope of this rewrite as that would be a rules change, but if enough members desire it, get a proposal written and submitted for consideration. However - the current manufacturers believe that the 2 classes need to stay joined at the hip for costs sake.


7. Now almost 4 weeks after the original proposal surfaced in Fastrack, we are being told it is the wrong draft and other changes need to be made, with only days before the next CRB meeting. We should be voting on whatever the true document is, not the mistaken one in the last Fastrack.

Not true - Larue posted that fact within a day (or 2) after the start of these threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darin Teeter

However, if this process was indeed started 15 years ago, it would seem to me that the cream didn't exactly rise to the top.

---

True - sometimes it takes a real kick in the ass for the officials to actively acknowledge that there is a problem - the '86 rewrite didn't take place until Bruns rode a Greyhound bus through the rule set of the time.

A quote from Ralph Firman to Bruns after the '85 meeting : "Nice car. What are you going to sell them next year?"

Firman is still in business - 4500+ car later.

However the proposal gets voted - up or down - makes no difference to me if it is the will of you guys, the racers who populate these classes. My "job", as it were, was only to get the ball rolling on something that has needed addressing for way too long.

This the last that I will post at this time - I have actual paying work that has too short a time span to get done.

[FONT=Verdana]Richard, You wrote (in black):[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]However - the current manufacturers believe that the 2 classes need to stay joined at the hip for costs sake.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]I don’t think the rules should be determined solely by the manufacturers. Of course we need to get their input, but they should not be the sole source. While I was reading your last post, the banner ad was that of ICP and Citation combined. While I acknowledge your sincerity, you must acknowledge that to many the timing of this looks like a conflict of interest.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Larue posted that fact within a day (or 2) after the start of these threads.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]I have been told many times by higher-ups in SCCA, “I don’t give a damn what’s posted on Apexspeed.” John LaRue saying, “oops, we made a little mistake” on Apexspeed, is not the same as having the proper document in Fastrack, the official place for members to look.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Not true - go back an reread all the posts from the start of the FF Underground bitching about the lack of clarity in the rules[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]I did say I have not heard any complaints since January of this year. The FF Underground has been out of existence how long now? ;) I've been to many race dates this year from Sebring to Mosport and many dates in between. The rules just have not been an issue with the competitiors this year through late August. Nor were chassis rules a common topic during the the FF40th last year.[/FONT]


I think we need to table this whole deal. And take the time to do it correct. This "30 day rush" is going to leave many with a sour taste about the rules making process. That distaste would be a bigger problem ahead than that of any individual class' rules.

I'm reasonably certain that any sensible person not involved in the FC community - an outsider looking in - is seeing this new rules proposal for exactly what it is - and from the people on the CRB and the BOD that I've spoken with, that is ringing true. It's a pretty obvious effort to make one car illegal, and it's not an even remotely clandestine one.

You can call it a "clarification", or whatever you want, but again, I think that any reasonable outsider that doesn't have any skin in the game would disagree with you. It's a substantive rules change, forced through at the last minute, that is specifically designed to make one car illegal.

I have confidence that common sense will prevail here - I think that are enough people on the BOD and the CRB that can see this for what it is - and that these last minute completely unnecessary rules changes will not be approved.

This rule proposal doesn't clarify things for the competitors and isn't needed. All it does is ensure that a select group of manufacturers' interests are protected at the expense of others.

I will agree with Mr. Pare that the GCR rules have needed "fixin' " for a long time. However, the timing and urgency of this particular effort certainly seems to be too much of a coincidence to anybody with a bit of common sense.

If it is really about clarification of a the entire ruleset, or an entire rewrite why are the rules still chock full of subjective terms and contradictions?

I don't consider these nit-picking, these are issues that should be clarified to avoid future issues.

For example:

...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 are similar materials? How similar is similar? Since when does "unrestricted" mean with restrictions?

Materials other than those specified in section 9.1.1.D.a above for seals, bearing and bearing liners, thread locking systems, windscreens, mirrors, instruments, wiring, electronic systems, electrical systems, cooling, hydraulic and oil systems, etc., is permitted.

What items fall in "etc.", what items don't?

No panels or components other than the required and optional load bearing panels may be attached to the chassis for structural purposes.

What constitutes "structural purposes"?, what if the primary purpose is other than structural but there is structural benifit?

For its entire length, the floorpan shall consist of substantially flat panel(s) in plane(s) approximately parallel to the ground plane (not counting chassis “rake”)

Substanitally flat? Approximately parallel?

1. Panel(s): minimum of either .060 inch heat treated aluminum (6061-T6 or equivalent) or 18 gauge steel, securely attached to the outside of the main frame tubes. No other material types will be allowed for these panels.

What is equivalent to 6061-T6 that would not be considered "other material types"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

True - sometimes it takes a real kick in the ass for the officials to actively acknowledge that there is a problem - the '86 rewrite didn't take place until Bruns rode a Greyhound bus through the rule set of the time.

---

Mr. Pare,

So if I am to understand your response correctly, the DB1-like "kick in the ass" you are referring to is the potential introduction of the Radon chassis? It would seem by your statement that this is is all about another rewrite to specifically ban a car that from the outset appears to be something different than what you and a few others envisioned many years ago, yet did not adequately communicate. That does not sound like something planned for 15 years.

In my opinion, this reactionary rules change truly needs to be tabled, reviewed and carefully considered so that, if necessary, we have a rules set that can stand for another 25 years. The current embodiment as posted in Fastrack has some serious conflicts that opens a few really big gaps. It is actually quite impressive that the current rules have worked for this long with little clarification. The framers did well.

Respectfully,
Darrin Teeter

Richard, I can appreciate you posting on here when I know you really don't have to defend your position on this site, I think it shows a certain leadership quality that the SCCA needs. I think you have conceived a lucid, intelligent, well thought out (to steal a line from My Cousin Vinny) plan to get this done.

If I have one criticism it's that you could have mentioned that even if the proposal gets put off or totally scrapped the Radon STILL most likely would not get the green light. That way the CRB and BoD would not have to listen to more bars of the "You're Out To Get Us" song, sung by the country group "I'm Out A ****load Of Doe".

I'm asking all of my friends too, yes, both of you, to send a message to SCCA to pass this right away.

I, also have confidence that common sense will prevail here, lets keep FF/FC racing affordable and work on cutting costs for buying and running these cars. I think people forget that the club is aimed at the amateur racer and should make rules that help them. The so called Pro Guys can fend for themselves, if they can make and keep a working business model good for them if not they should not depend on the club to float their boat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camadella

I'm reasonably certain that any sensible person not involved in the FC community - an outsider looking in - is seeing this new rules proposal for exactly what it is - and from the people on the CRB and the BOD that I've spoken with, that is ringing true. It's a pretty obvious effort to make one car illegal, and it's not an even remotely clandestine one.

You can call it a "clarification", or whatever you want, but again, I think that any reasonable outsider that doesn't have any skin in the game would disagree with you. It's a substantive rules change, forced through at the last minute, that is specifically designed to make one car illegal.

I have confidence that common sense will prevail here - I think that are enough people on the BOD and the CRB that can see this for what it is - and that these last minute completely unnecessary rules changes will not be approved.

---

Just for clarity, let me repeat myself: the radon is not legal per the 2010 gcr. I don't want that to get lost in the noise here.

No one I have talked to thinks your car is going to be better, in fact it is quite the opposite. We are all worried about what Is going to happen when someone who knows what they are doing builds a car if you can get the rules changed to allow your car in.

As I stated several times in the "Radon photos" thread, Richard's proposal is needed to state IN WRITING, and not just inference, what the rules have always intended. Leaving the historical intent unstated leads to just the types of interpretation (hybrid chassis, etc.) that some posters against the clarification would like to see.

As I said in that thread:
-----------------------------------------------
"...What we have to worry about is further rules "creep." Once we allow carbon-fiber panels which add stiffness to the chassis bolted on at the prescribed 6" minimum between fasteners, it does not take much imagination to forecast the next step in this rules creep.

The next step would be a full CF "body" or "safety enclosure" that wraps completely over the top of the now vestigial chassis, and provides most of the chassis rigidity and strength. At that point it would probably be more economical to do a real CF chassis as in FA, etc., and we know where that would lead in terms of initial and maintenance cost.

So, IMO, this type of rule change is absolutely necessary."
----------------------------------------------

I have seen nothing since then to change my opinion on this subject.

Richard, thank you for taking the huge amount of time and effort to do this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveW

As I stated several times in the "Radon photos" thread, Richard's proposal is needed to state IN WRITING, and not just inference, what the rules have always intended. Leaving the historical intent unstated leads to just the types of interpretation (hybrid chassis, etc.) that some posters against the clarification would like to see.

As I said in that thread:
-----------------------------------------------
"...What we have to worry about is further rules "creep." Once we allow carbon-fiber panels which add stiffness to the chassis bolted on at the prescribed 6" minimum between fasteners, it does not take much imagination to forecast the next step in this rules creep.

---

The "Framers" knew EXACTLY what they were doing with the 6" rule...they were explicitly permitting "limited" chassis stiffening with this rule. Anyone who argues otherwise either does not understand basic physics or underestimates the brainpower in the room in 1985.

Efforts to recast the '86 rules as somehow trying to "outlaw" chassis stiffening is revisionist propaganda at best.

Moreover, anyone who thinks that exploiting the 6" rule with aluminum or steel, as explicitly permitted in the rules, would not accomplish the same thing is similarly ignorant of basic physics.

Quote:

---

The next step would be a full CF "body" or "safety enclosure" that wraps completely over the top of the now vestigial chassis, and provides most of the chassis rigidity and strength. At that point it would probably be more economical to do a real CF chassis as in FA, etc., and we know where that would lead in terms of initial and maintenance cost.

So, IMO, this type of rule change is absolutely necessary."
----------------------------------------------

I have seen nothing since then to change my opinion on this subject.

Richard, thank you for taking the huge amount of time and effort to do this.

---

You are too smart to repeat this propaganda, Dave, so please do not sully your good name by repeating it. Anyone can weld a tube frame chassis in their garage. Building a true cf tub involved tens of thousands in the required certification testing costs, not to mention autoclaves, prepregs and lots of specialized skills to get it right. In volume, a cf tub can compete on cost with tube frames, but certainly not as a one-off.

Hello Dave:

I sat in a room for four hours on Monday afternoon and heard at least six different versions of what the rules "intended." Several of those opinions were expressed by individuals who were at the last constructor's meeting in 1985.

There is a broad spectrum of views for the future of FF/FC, ranging from a level of conservatism that would make many existing cars illegal to a transition to carbon tubs.

If the majority of the members of the club want to change the rules to prohibit any innovation in the class, then, as I have stated over and over again, let's listen to their views and craft a well-written set of rules expressing that preference.

I'll offer my time to help with the effort. I've already sent some suggested wording to the CRB that would explicitly prevent the sort of escalation you mention (although I don't think it could be done even under the current rules).

But let's not pretend this rules change proposal is anything but--by far--the biggest change in the FF/FC rules in 25 years. And, as much as Richard protests he's been working on this for "fifteen years," the evidence shows this last-minute proposal was precipitated by the introduction of the Radon chassis and the panic of a few individuals.

Regards,

Nathan

why delay for a year ? Get it sorted now. And for the record I voted 'yes' with a provision that I was told was already accounted for anyways. People constantly bitch about lack of action by SCCA, now they want no or a delayed action. strange.

Stan and Nathan,

We, as I have said before, are destined to always have a difference of opinion on this subject. Hopefully, the CRB, along with all the constructors and input from the membership, can come to a compromise that serves the membership well, while not stifling useful innovations within the intent of the FC and FF classes.

I am not opposed to innovation, but I am opposed to changes that could lead to major cost escalations and make obsolete most of the existing cars.

As I said above, a compromise that resolves these issues is what I hope we will be able to achieve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Foschi

I think people forget that the club is aimed at the amateur racer and should make rules that help them. The so called Pro Guys can fend for themselves, if they can make and keep a working business model good for them if not they should not depend on the club to float their boat.

---

I wish more members felt that way, or at least were more vocal about it if they do. Too many closed door meetings attended only by those who "need to know." It stinks like Washington sometimes.

I think Frog had it right, there has been no major problems with the chassis rules as they currently exist, to that end how many major battles or protests have we seen in Fastrack in the last several years regarding FC chassis rules?



To change the rules of the game at a time when a group of racers has made the investment in time and money to bring forth a new car that they believe is legal under the present rules makes no sense unless the intent of the new rules is to keep that specific car from running.

We heard ad nauseum that under the present 2010 rules the Radon is illegal.

If in fact the car is illegal and won't survive protest under the existing 2010 rules then what is anyone worried about?:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Clayton

...You are too smart to repeat this propaganda, Dave, so please do not sully your good name by repeating it...

---

Thanks (I think :confused:), Stan, but that does not change my opinion. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Clayton

The "Framers" knew EXACTLY what they were doing with the 6" rule...they were explicitly permitting "limited" chassis stiffening with this rule. Anyone who argues otherwise either does not understand basic physics or underestimates the brainpower in the room in 1985.

---

Well said.

Quote:

---

Moreover, anyone who thinks that exploiting the 6" rule with aluminum or steel, as explicitly permitted in the rules, would not accomplish the same thing is similarly ignorant of basic physics.

---

Funny you should mention that! I have a design for aluminum cockpit protection panels that mount exactly like the carbon fiber/Innegra panels we use currently. If for some reason the Court of Appeals finds that our panels do not meet the 2010 rules we will replace them with aluminum panels.

Because of the geometry, they actually make the chassis slightly stiffer than the current panels, but provide much less side impact protection and are significantly more expensive. They weigh about the same.

I think there is a visceral negative reaction to "carbon fiber" among many club racers, which isn't based on current engineering reality. You've done a good job providing real facts about modern materials in your postings, hopefully you'll continue to do so and we can bring FF/FC manufacturing into the 21st century...without changing the basic intent of providing economical formula car racing.

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

Just for clarity, let me repeat myself: the radon is not legal per the 2010 gcr. I don't want that to get lost in the noise here.

---

:blackflag: Repeating the same opinion over and over doesn't make it fact. Talk about noise. We all have opinions whether it is legal or not....however, at this point they are just our opinions. :blackflag:

The silence is deafening.....what ever happened to the Radon controversy? Last I heard they were protesting themselves.

I'm enclosing the text of the compliance review we submitted to SCCA, as well as the decision of the first court, the Court of Appeals, and a response by the Court of Appeals to our request for clarification.

At this point it is clear that Radon is not welcome in SCCA Club Racing, so we have stopped building cars. We are currently considering the best way to recover our high six figure investment.

I am unable to respond to any comments in public.

Nathan

My request for clarification of the final ruling:

Quote:

---

If appropriate, we'd like to request clarification of the ruling in regards to item 2. We are all somewhat confused. I can provide a more formal letter if necessary, but here is our question:

We understand that carbon fiber panels cannot be used to satisfy the cockpit intrusion protection requirement in 9.1.1.D.7.b. We satisfy that requirement with Kevlar-reinforced bodywork. We are not aware of anything in the GCR preventing supplemental cockpit intrusion protection, and many existing cars have supplemental Kevlar or aluminum panels not meeting 9.1.1.D.7.b that add safety beyond the minimum requirement.

Can you confirm that our carbon fiber cockpit interior panels, as specifically permitted in 9.1.1.D.8.f, are compliant if not used to satisfy 9.1.1.D.7.b?

Regards,

Nathan Ulrich
Radon Sport LLC

---

And the response from the Court of Appeals:

Quote:

---

Mr. Ulrich

The COA understands your question and shares your desire to ensure we compete in race cars that are as safe as possible. However, the Court does not set the rules; we simply are tasked with interpreting what is written and applying it.

The opening paragraph for the FC rules (2010 GCR, page 180) clearly declares that this is a restricted class and any allowable modifications must be stated in the rules, and there are no exceptions. 9.1.1. D.7.b clearly stipulates the materials that may be used for intrusion protection and carbon fiber is not listed. Therefore, carbon fiber reinforcement and/or carbon fiber panels either for primary or supplemental intrusion prevention are not permitted based on the rules as written.

In your petition you cite 9.1.1.D.8.f as the authority allowing carbon fiber “interior” panels. 9.1.1.D.8.f states that carbon fiber may be used to construct “cockpit interior” panels. The Court concluded the cockpit space is inside the frame based on the 2010 GCR Glossary definition on page 126. The panels you presented are affixed outside the frame and extend behind the cockpit area to the rear. We therefore do not consider them “cockpit interior” panels and the permission to use carbon fiber in this rule does not apply to your panels.

Now, D.8.f would seem to indicate that panels wholly affixed within the cockpit may be made from carbon fiber. However, due to the limitations imposed by 2010 GCR 9.1.1.B and 9.1.1.D the Court determined that even then a blanket interpretation is not appropriate, because how and where the panel(s) is affixed in the cockpit could enable it to perform a non-allowed function. So a roundabout way of saying, it will depend on where and how the panel(s) is affixed, its stated purpose, and any underlying other purposes it may also serve.

The Court is unable to give you a definitive answer on how carbon fiber panels may be used, only that the current design and purpose of the carbon fiber panels presented by you for a ruling do not comply with the wording in 2010 GCR 9.1.1.B and 9.1.1.D.

Mr. Ulrich, the Club Racing Board (CRB) is aware of limitations imposed by the current rules. A copy of your question and our reply was provided to Bob Dowie, CRB Chairman, for their consideration.

Respectfully
Michal West, Chairman, Court of Appeals

---

Why don't you use your expertise and modern technology to develop carbon-based side protection panels that truely increase safety without any other purposes?

It would seem that the racing communities (racers, manufacturers, sanctioning bodies) would welcome such technology and that it would be potentially more lucrative than building entire cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

I am unable to respond to any comments in public.

Nathan

---

So there is good news!!!! Not about the car but at your lack of being able to comment.

Stan:
I truly appreciate the direct and to the point way you state things.
Most people on this thread have some sort of agenda and when you read their posts its like trying to look for the hidden meaning.


Thanks for being straight forward and non biased. Just the facts.
Jimmy

I hope having an opinion doesn't get me banned!!

:) Perhaps SCCA needs another expensive lesson

I smell Fran Am part 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Foschi

The silence is deafening.....what ever happened to the Radon controversy? Last I heard they were protesting themselves.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Foschi

So there is good news!!!! Not about the car but at your lack of being able to comment.

---

Mike - Stirring up controversy & kicking a guy when he is down. Pretty much unlike the helpful support and friendly competition displayed by most members of this forum.

Nathan - Sorry about your bad news. Your innovation and engineering is inspirational. I hope you can salvage some good from your efforts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

I smell Fran Am part 2.

---

Not really. The Fran Am lawsuit was founded on an assertion that SCCA delayed acceptance of the Fran Am car in order to further its interest in the FSCCA/FE.

I have no knowledge of, nor opinion on, any possible Radon claim, but it would be different from Fran Am.

John:
I understand the Fran Am lawsuit. My inference was all the back door dealings that were uncovered during the Fran Am suit.

Jimmy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beartrax

Mike - Stirring up controversy & kicking a guy when he is down. Pretty much unlike the helpful support and friendly competition displayed by most members of this forum.

Nathan - Sorry about your bad news. Your innovation and engineering is inspirational. I hope you can salvage some good from your efforts.

---

I just asked a simple question, if want to read into it feel free.........but now that you mention it.....

Nathan says they have spent "high 6 figures", on what????? And if that's true, and they made an unbelievable profit of $10K per car it would take over 75 cars to see a profit, that would be total sales of 4.5 million dollars in sales...and that would be only if you sold them all at one shot, as keeping the doors open for the next 10 years to sell them would kill the profit number.
If I were an investor I would be asking, "Hey, where's the high 6 figure money that went into the pool?"

This could be a good business model though, build something that won't be accepted and than start a lawsuit againt a membership based organization that has not won a lawsuit in 40 years. Could work, anyone interested in getting this started let me know.

Also, I have not seen any "helpful support and friendly competition displayed by most members of this forum" on here from the group of people that are behind this endeavor towards anyone that is against it.

Everyone, please have a Merry Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not lawyer but I am a racer. I have been helped by a lot of racers on this forum and at the track.

Some of the nicest people I've ever met are racers who would give you their last spare part and wrench all night to help you get on the track. I think competition can bring out the worst in people but I also think it brings out the best in some as well.

I see the "helpful support and friendly competition displayed by most members of this forum" each time I need help and truly appreciate it.

My 2 cents. Over and out,
Jimmy
P.S. Merry Friggin Christmas!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

I'm not lawyer but I am a racer. I have been helped by a lot of racers on this forum and at the track.

Some of the nicest people I've ever met are racers who would give you their last spare part and wrench all night to help you get on the track. I think competition can bring out the worst in people but I also think it brings out the best in some as well.

I see the "helpful support and friendly competition displayed by most members of this forum" each time I need help and truly appreciate it.

My 2 cents. Over and out,
Jimmy
P.S. Merry Friggin Christmas!!!!!

---

I could not agree more, 99.9% of the people would give alot to each other, I'm talking about the other .1% that are mean, self centered, envious, no class, etc. etc.....that flame anyone on here that has a differant opinion then thiers. YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

Love Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Foschi

I'm talking about the other .1% that are mean, self centered, envious, no class, etc. etc.....that flame anyone on here that has a differant opinion then thiers. YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

Love Mike

---

Foschi, stop bragging about yourself! :D

Ho Ho Ho.

Hi Cole,

You still spell your name Big M and a little organ?:D

HE HE HE

ya know, during that previous epic thread about the radon, i just couldn't wrap my mind around that whole outside is inside concept. i came away from that thread feeling intellectually inferior. i thought "gee, maybe cole is right about all the things he said about me". i feel better now.............

mark d

ps: i guess "intent" is an important concept after all.