Oh No, Not Again

Warning: Don't go surfing in the "Club Racing" section of the SCCA website. And don't click on "Cars and Rules". Don't look at "September Fastrack preliminary Minutes / Tech Bulletin", And heaven forbid don't click on "8/12/11- Preliminary Minutes". It will mess up your day.

If you want to save all those steps:
http://cms.scca.com/documents/2011%2...track%20v3.pdf

The CRB is asking us members: What Do You Think?

My first thought was why didn't they post a letter number for that proposal, and who the author(s) might be. ???

Who wants to shorten the rear length of FF by 20cm?

Who wants to combine two classes into one rule set when they have been separate classes since at least 1986?

If they (whoever the authors are) are trying to clarify the rules, why would you add a sentence like this one:
"Composite anti-intrusion panels shall be attached with no more than eight fasteners of no more than 8 AN or superior grade fasteners per side of no more than .250 inch diameter."

Has there been some big demand by the members of SCCA to write all new rules for FC and FF? Somehow I must have missed all those threads here on Apexspeed from active racers demanding a rule rewrite. I guess i have been too busy racing under the rules we just rewrote in 2009. :confused:

I've been reading this thing for hours.... I'm thinking, Oh Boy, here we go again. :(

Wow, does this mean the Radon (V1) is going to be legal?

Too bad this didnt come out next week after the kids go back to school. I will have a lot more time to read this stuff. I look forward to read the rule gurus interpretations. This should be some good reading. :thumbsup:

Mike:

As you know the rules are currently joint rules. The FC rules section refers to the FF section several times. Thus what is happening in FC also applies to FF. And by extension to FB because of similar language covering tube frames.

I have spent many hours working on an answer to the Radon. I think I have a good one that under the current rules is perfectly acceptable. The down side is the cost. But for me or anyone else to stay in the car building business we have to answer this challenge. I feel sorry for the RFR guys who have brought to market a rules compliant product only to be seriously upstaged.

The Radon is playing in the gray areas of the rules and these needs to be settled definitively. If the Radon is the future then write the rules that way.

Interestingly the first act in this play was 1969 and involved FV. Then 1986 hosted round 2 involving FF. I guess this will be round 3 and will define a tube frame, at least for the next 20 years.

I am affraid that the status quo is not going to prevail.

wondered when this would finally hit apexspeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

Warning: Don't go surfing in the "Club Racing" section of the SCCA website. And don't click on "Cars and Rules". Don't look at "September Fastrack preliminary Minutes / Tech Bulletin", And heaven forbid don't click on "8/12/11- Preliminary Minutes". It will mess up your day.

If you want to save all those steps:
http://cms.scca.com/documents/2011%2...track%20v3.pdf

The CRB is asking us members: What Do You Think?

My first thought was why didn't they post a letter number for that proposal, and who the author(s) might be. ???

Who wants to shorten the rear length of FF by 20cm?

Who wants to combine two classes into one rule set when they have been separate classes since at least 1986?

If they (whoever the authors are) are trying to clarify the rules, why would you add a sentence like this one:
"Composite anti-intrusion panels shall be attached with no more than eight fasteners of no more than 8 AN or superior grade fasteners per side of no more than .250 inch diameter."

Has there been some big demand by the members of SCCA to write all new rules for FC and FF? Somehow I must have missed all those threads here on Apexspeed from active racers demanding a rule rewrite. I guess i have been too busy racing under the rules we just rewrote in 2009. :confused:

I've been reading this thing for hours.... I'm thinking, Oh Boy, here we go again. :(

---

I guess the usual suspects are behind it all!

The FC section - rear wings, exhaust, and diffuser - are moved forward by 20 cm. This is unsat.

The "venturi type tunnel", proposed oulawed, describes almost every single diffuser I've seen on an FC.

From the .pdf doc: "All new Formula Continental and Formula Ford cars are to be built to these specifications." I read that as meaning that all cars built prior to Jan 1, 2012 do not have to comply with any of these new proposed rules.

with all the other changes, I don't get the continued prohibition on bodywork materials.

There are other proposed rules that are not easily verifiable - the wheel rule for instance - where measuring between the beads makes any sort of compliance checking impossible unless the tire is dismounted.

Yeah, it's a fine point, it's not like people are finding huge advantage cheating .25" on wheel width. but if we're going to burn the house down every single aspect ought to be scrutinized to make sure it can be easily verified and there's minimum opportunity for interpretation - like the prohibition on "high strength composites"

Rob I had the same thought about the diffusers. You allow diffusers, but you say you cant have a 'venturi tunnel' diffuser. EVERY diffuser creates a venturi effect. although the picture included looks an awful like 1 specific diffuser that exists. Even if there are parts I like, for that double speak alone I'd have to vote against it.

I wondered the same thing about the cars as well. If its on track now then these rules dont apply ? Would be a kick in the ass to a guy who bought the identical car next year only to be told he cant run his while his buddy who bought in 2011 can.

My main point: I just think the CRB should not publish anything without stating who the authors are, or who backed the effort. Simple. How else can we follow the money in our consideration?

Steve,
If it is indeed time to redefine tube frames, maybe we need to consider all available technologies and materials and their price points. Just maybe the 25 year old definition is out-dated.

As you know, i have been a proponent of separating the class rules completely. They are different classes with different aero packages, different wheel sizes, and different power plants. They should be separate. Early this morning i sat down with my word processor and in less than 4 hours completed a draft of the rules completely separate, so no entrant has to flip back and forth searching for exceptions, etc. It is not rocket science to separate them.

After the 2009 rewrite/revision we have finally seen something like 18 new chassis ordered. The first sign of life in the class in quite a while. Now we are going to change the rules again...

apparently the diffuser wording only applies to FF which I would then agree with. Some clean up needed in the wording and organizing.

I read this proposal at the Daytona Double SARRC. Fred Clark had a copy, it was a compilation between the FSRAC and the comp board. Even though they are trying to make it easier, i also misread it the first time around. Seems this time they are concentrating on FC and then excluding the rule for FF (diffuser, at first I was steaming. I personally want the under trays gone as well). I have not checked my db-1 bodied db-6 to see if it is to long, but Fred said they welcome any and all comments.
john

for record my DB-1 with rear spoiler is 78cm 78.75 to be exact

Mike,
I just went out and checked, the db-6 with a db-1 tail is about 27" from axle centerline.

[FONT=&quot]I still strongly believe that the rules for FF and FC should be absolutely split apart. It may have been that way in 1986, but the cars are now so significantly different that they warrant being separate. The rules are ONLY for future use, not for those who were around in 1986. A separate “caveat” section within the rules in some sort of appendix, which explains some of the history, would be beneficial. Regardless of how important it was to how the rules came about, I don’t particularly care what happened in 1986. I want it short, simple, and sweet: What are the rules from here on out?[/FONT]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevinFirlein

for record my DB-1 with rear spoiler is 78cm 78.75 to be exact

---

Um. That's "engine cover". Please.

After only reading it once I don't have much if an opinion except that I would be in favor of a rewrite if only because it would clear up some of the confusion that is obviously around and prevent any more expensive mistakes. This does look like much, much more than a rules rewrite though. This is a rules change.

That said I am strongly against anything that separates the FF and FC rules. Keeping them the same has been a positive for both classes. Look how many cars in each class has spent time in the other class. I have made it clear that I think the FB rules are truly awful but the dumbest thing in a dumb set if rules was to not follow the same philosophy and make th class FC with bike motors. All it has done is make the class more expensive for everyone for everyone.

No one should act like it is hard to understand the relationship betweeen the FF and FC rules now but something that makes it clearer is not a bad thing.

dont worry John I measured the length with the high downforce struts.....ooops maybe said too much there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

My main point: I just think the CRB should not publish anything without stating who the authors are, or who backed the effort. Simple. How else can we follow the money in our consideration?

Steve,
If it is indeed time to redefine tube frames, maybe we need to consider all available technologies and materials and their price points. Just maybe the 25 year old definition is out-dated.

---

Mike:

Regardless of where any one is on the rules issues, they need to be clearly written in the light of what is being built. The current situation is not workable.

Any ruling on the legality of any part of a car is only good until the next issue of the GCR. One can not build cars and not know what the rules are. If the rules are left unchanged, then we can face the same litigation each year.

I look at the Radon and I think it is illegal. Obviously reasonable people can see the same car and think I'm wrong and it is perfectly legal. Let's not have the ambiguity.

In 1986 one of the rules issues that was addressed had to do with aluminum monoque vs. tube frames. The decision then was to reaffirm the tube frame. The 1969 ruling involved a lot of cars that all had to replace the frames. The 1969 ruling was similar in that it involved tube frames vs. monocoque construction. Now, we are dealing with composites vs. aluminum or steel.

Steve,

Are you talking about the Radon that is currently running in the Pro series being illegal or the version 1 with the composite panels? Also, do these updated rules make the version 1 legal by allowing the composite side panels or were there more disagreements than I realize?

THanks.

I'll stick to facts, as I'm sure my opinion of this rules change proposal will surprise no one.

The GCR provides a mechanism for resolving any "grey areas" in the rules. The Radon Rn.10 is legal under the current rules as interpreted by the CoA, and we made several design changes, including expensive modifications to existing cars, to comply. Whether you agree or disagree with the CoA, there is no ambiguity. Anyone constructing a new car can use the same mechanism to resolve any questions they might have.

This rules change proposal is written specifically to make the Radon Rn.10 illegal, and some of the proponents of this proposal have publicly stated that intent. There is no modification path possible to make existing cars comply, and any new cars would have to be redesigned almost from scratch.

We have homologated seven cars so far, and expect 10 to 12 cars to be homologated by January 2012. I'm told that this rules change, if implemented, would be the first time SCCA has made an entire group of cars illegal with a rules change. You can imagine the consequences of that for the class and for the SCCA.

We have sold more cars in the past year than any other FF or FC constructor, and we were not consulted on this rules change proposal. If the goal of a rules change for FF/FC is really to resolve ambiguity and clarify the rules for the future, then you would think all interested parties should be involved. I went to the constructor's meeting at the Runoffs almost a year ago ready to work with other constructors and members of the CRB on a new set of rules, and was willing to make significant concessions in order to come up with a proposal acceptable to all. No other constructor was interested.

I'll write to the CRB to express my views, and I suggest you do the same.

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VehDyn

Steve,

Are you talking about the Radon that is currently running in the Pro series being illegal or the version 1 with the composite panels? Also, do these updated rules make the version 1 legal by allowing the composite side panels or were there more disagreements than I realize?

THanks.

---

I have not seen either version of the car. Based on what has been posted and other pictures I have seen, there are several issues with the construction. Some are simply because the rules as written never anticipated the interpretation that has been applied. The stressed belly pan rule is one.

For what it is worth, the new rules stop me from doing my answer to the Radon construction principals -- integrating the anti-intrusion panels into the structure of the frame.

Again, let's get rid of the ambiguity and settle on a set of rules that we all can agree on what they imply about how we build cars.

Nathan: I sited the 1969 example of a rules change that did outlaw a lot more cars than you have built. They had also won several national championships.

Nathan,

I assume from what you are saying that you guys filed for several more rules clarifiations beyond the one that you chose to share earlier. Do you have any interest in sharing them? It would certainly be understandable if you didn't want to as you certianly have the right to keep them private.

Nathan,
Please explain how this update will make your current car illegal? Do your side panels have more the 6 or 8 points of attachment? I have looked at the pictures here and stare in awe at what you have produced and I don't see the problem
John

John:

There are several changes in the rules proposal designed to make the Rn.10 illegal:

Quote:

---

D.3.b.4. The floorpan may be constructed in more than one section. For its entire length, the floorpan shall be parallel to the reference area described in D.5.

---

The "parallel" requirement has never been in the FF/FC rules. There is no definition of "parallel" or a tolerance, nor any suggestion of how a scrutineer could measure it. Our floor pan is not parallel to our undertray/reference area, and making it parallel is impossible without scrapping the entire chassis.

Quote:

---

D.3.d. ...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...

---

There is no way to install an anti-intrusion panel that doesn't serve some structural purpose. This is one of the (many) ambiguities in the proposed new rules that would make it impossible for a tech inspector to interpret consistently.

Our panels attach with more than 8 fasteners, but comply with the six-inch rule (which is preserved for aluminum and steel panels in the new rules, but apparently isn't adequate for composite panels, which shows the ignorance of the drafters of the rules).

Wren: Yes. No. ;)

Nathan

My only comment is that this proposal set forward by the CRB only serves to make silly restrictions and to make the reading of the FF and FC rules as difficult as possible.

They are two different classes that should not be intertwined to the extent that they currently are, let alone what this proposal does.

What members requested / proposed this??

Nathan, how far back does the stepped floor begin? FF is from cl of front axle, FC is from rear of front tires.
I also assume that it was an oversight that still allows alum or steel side panels fastened very 6 inches... Bet that gets changed:D:

Nathan,

That is certainly your choice, but it would change my opinion to know that this was going to outlaw cars that are currently compliant. I see so many things that are glaringly against the 2011 GCR on the Radon that until someone shows me the COA rulings allowing them that I do not believe that this rules change will outlaw anyone's currently legal car.

I like how it deletes the 1" restriction... :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Robinson II

Nathan, how far back does the stepped floor begin? FF is from cl of front axle, FC is from rear of front tires.
I also assume that it was an oversight that still allows alum or steel side panels fastened very 6 inches... Bet that gets changed:D:

---

John:

From what I have seen, the floor is essentially flat. It goes from the seat back to the front bulkhead but at an angle to the ground. It does not go under the fuel cell or the roll bar. The "floor of car is flat from the leading edge of the rear tires to the trailing edge of the front tires.This is why we have to have a rule rewrite.

Nathan:

Without a rules rewrite, you are vulnerable, at least in SCCA club racing, to a protest some where at some time. You need the rules to change to protect you as much as I want a change to spell out what is safe to build. You might want to spend some time talking to John Grubb. He is very knowledgeable especially about the rules process in SCCA. He knows about the 1969 and 1986 rules issues better than I. The way I see it, this issue involves FF and FB as well as FC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

John:

The poor RFR guys have to run their splitter/floor pan to the front bulkhead -- parallel to the ground. This is why we have to have a rule rewrite.

---

don't use the term "poor rfr guys". I'm quite pleased with my car and think Ralph and crew did a good job updating the most popular design in FC.

Time to get out... bummer, I was just having fun.. This is why SCCA is having trouble with car counts.

STOP F_N with the RULES...

-Bob

Using some logic presented arguing that FF and FC rules should be combined, then i argue that FV and FST rules should also be combined, based on the chance that someone may use a FV chassis to build a FST.

The fact that the brakes, engines, wheels, tires, and front suspensions are totally different should have no bearing. I say lets combine FV and FST rules while we are at it. :)

Unfortunately there is no logic in the whole bit of nonsense that is purported to be a rules"clarification".

Who asked for a rules change?

None of the NE drivers I know.

A lot of time could have been saved in writing by the proposal "authors" by simply saying "No Radons Need Apply" since its pretty obvious this is what this is all.

What they should do if they can't build a better mousetrap and if they don't like the car that has been homologated, simply man up and show up at a race and protest it.

In the meantime, quit screwing with the rules. :checkered:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

The poor RFR guys have to run their splitter/floor pan to the front bulkhead -- parallel to the ground.

---

The RFR designers chose to make the bottom of their chassis their declared reference area surface. That was their choice. The current rules say the chassis has to extend to the front bulkhead. Because they elected the bottom of the chassis and the reference area to be one in the same, their splitter has to go to the front bulkhead.

The Radon on the otherhand declared the bottom of their bodywork to be their declared reference area surface. Their chassis is positioned higher than the bodywork. So their "splitter" can end at the rear of the front tires. All perfectly legal the way i read the current existing GCR.

I have inspected one Radon at Mosport. From the back of the front tires to the front of the rear tires it may possibly be the flatest surface ever seen on a FC car. I could not find even 1 mm variance (additive, up and down) over the whole declared reference area surface. It is truly a flat bottomed car as ever there was.

In the new proposed "rule rewrite" the authors also still allow the bottom of the chassis to not have to be the declared reference area surface. But in the rewrite they are saying that the bottom of the chassis has to be parallel to the declared reference area surface. I can think of only one reason for that "parallel rule". From an engineering or even safety standpoint, if the bottom of the chassis is enclosed in bodywork and raised as much as multiple inches above the bottom, what difference does it make if it is parallel to the bottom or not? Why the insistance that it be parallel? Hum...

Maybe it was because I watched the Senna move on Friday here in LA , the Martin Donnelly crash hit home. I now feel old as some of my younger friends were too young to see Senna race........

I sent a letter to the CRB to express by concerns:
1. Safety and cost control are the most important items.
2. Safety and performance items need to be implemented to all cars, including legacy cars for fairness.
3. We need a 5 and 10 year plan on how to proactively grow the FF class

(this is my personal opinion. Usually I only post facts, not opinions so I am affraid.....)

[FONT=Verdana]Dear CRB, [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]I would like to express my opinion to the Aug 2, 2011 rules change proposal to the GCR. I am a 20 year SCCA member, have raced in FF, SSC, and SSB. and currently have a 1993 Vector FF car I am restoring, and am a Mechanical Engineer. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]1. History show there has been a severe decline in FF chassis manufacturing over the last 20 years. One of the leading factors of new FF chassis not being sold in years past was the grand fathering of the Swift DB-1 which placed increase weight over the front tires as the drivers feet were allowed forward of the current FF rules. This was an unfair advantage and the DB-1 dominated the FF category for many years. Based on history any new rule which effect performance and safety must be applicable to all legacy cars. That is all cars entering the race must have the same rules applied. This will maintain fairness and safety to the FF competitor. One option would be to have all National cars meet any new rules. the grandfather cars could race in regional FF races, and later move to the CF class. This is not a good option for safety.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]2. After reviewing the rules, there appears to be more emphasis on performance than safety. I would recommend investigation on the increased side protection rules currently implemented by the UK FF group and governed by the FIA. Again all cars entering the top UK FF class must comply to the rules. Increased side protection should help SCCA reduce their exposure to lawsuits from injury claims and reduce the SCCA insurance. More FF racers would be involved with the increased side protection as I have heard this personally from many non FF racers. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]3. Cost containment is very critical to FF Chassis manufacturing. If combining the FF class and FC class increases cost by specification, then the classes should remain separate. I understand combining them could reduce cost thru increase amortization of the investment made for tooling. However, we need more cost reduction by limiting the cost of suspension dampers, or qty of sensors in the data collection, and the data loggers cost. Also FF might have a rule for 4 dampers and springs maximum, while the FC car could have a third spring or damper in the front or rear suspension, etc. Also cockpit adjustable sway bars are very expensive to have in the FF class, but should be allowed in the FC class. There is no reason to have ceramic bearings in FF cars.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]4. The rules proposed appear to effect very specific manufacturers, and reactionary in nature. This is not in the best interest of SCCA. Safety, and increased participation thru cost control and provided a product to attract the younger demographic should be the concept of the SCCA. If the median age of the SCCA FF class continues to rise there are significant problems for the class in the future. High cost prevents the youth from participating in FF.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]5. Any new rules set should have a 5 year plan. Rules stability should help FF owners and constructors plan for their investment.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]6. For specifics, A: Anti intrusion arms should be mandatory[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]B: Increased Nose box/crush box rules safety should be implemented and mandatory to have legacy cars conform. C: Tire size for the front and rear wheels should be fixed (no front tires to be utilized in the rear) For cost control the FF and FC wheels and tires should be investigated and unified if the cost warrants it.[/FONT]

If I understand the implications of this correctly, it sounds likely to kill the class. In a country where 50% of the people are going to vote for all tax increases, since they don't pay any, and with an administration that is anti-productive-people, I don't see a lot of people lining up to buy $50,000 toys. I am hesitant to buy ramps and scale platforms because I don't know if racing will survive the coming inflation problems. I certainly am not going to spend thousands of dollars altering my DB-1. It would be different if we were hearing of lots of injuries due to inadequate safety rules, but as far as I know, FF still has a pretty good safety record.
Just one mans POV, but I doubt I am alone.

"From what I have seen, the floor is essentially flat. It goes from the seat back to the front bulkhead but at an angle to the ground. It does not go under the fuel cell or the roll bar."

Is the floor higher in the front than the rear, angled upward?

Does it not go under the fuel cell or the roll bar because this would require an angle or a floor deviates from flat?

Brian

"The Radon on the otherhand declared the bottom of their bodywork to be their declared reference area surface. Their chassis is positioned higher than the bodywork. So their "splitter" can end at the rear of the front tires."

What is the benefit of this design feature?

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

"The Radon on the otherhand declared the bottom of their bodywork to be their declared reference area surface. Their chassis is positioned higher than the bodywork. So their "splitter" can end at the rear of the front tires."

What is the benefit of this design feature?

Brian

---

nathan feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it allowed them to create a true raised nose chassis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swiftdrivr

If I understand the implications of this correctly, it sounds likely to kill the class.

---

After continuing to read it, I don't see that it affects anyone's car that is legal to the 2011 GCR and it makes it easier to avoid the mistakes that have been made lately. That doesn't scream "kill the class" to me.

Quote:

---

I don't see a lot of people lining up to buy $50,000 toys. I am hesitant to buy ramps and scale platforms because I don't know if racing will survive the coming inflation problems. I certainly am not going to spend thousands of dollars altering my DB-1. It would be different if we were hearing of lots of injuries due to inadequate safety rules, but as far as I know, FF still has a pretty good safety record.

---

The toys are $100k now. I wouldn't worry about racing surviving. It always seems to do fine.