Radon photos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dennis McCarthy

Steve,

So who can I pick up the phone and call today and have a new car delivered next week?

---

Dennis, the only builder you could call right now and get a complete new US built car from Is Piper. The citation is sold in kit form, as sourcing and putting together all the pieces is the PITA part of the process. But be warned, those chassis are not sitting there waiting for an engine. So the comment about getting one next week is not possible.

Nathan,
Is the bottom of the side pods even with the floor pan? I now see your understanding of the rule concerning the protection panels not being a stress bearing panel but was thrown at first due to your explanation of the fasteners used in the chassis tubes, seems extreme for non load bearing panels...

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dennis McCarthy

Steve,


So who can I pick up the phone and call today and have a new car delivered next week?

---

The chassis that was on display at the 2009 Run Offs with the Fit engine is actually a Zetec chassis and is sitting in my garage. You appear to be in impulse buyer. In all the years and over 250 cars I have produced, I have never had any luck serving the impulse buyer market.

I chose the kit as a business model because it allows me to provide the highest value to my customers at the lowest cost. My best customers have been "do it your self" types with limited resources. The last chassis is number 9 and the only one un-sold in the last production run. I will have 3 cars from the current run at this years run offs and a reasonable shot at 3 championships.

While the current car looks very much like DW's 1994 Citation, it is an all new design in 2006. The new car is 15% stiffer, lighter (requiring nearly 90 lbs ballast in a recent case) and has many improvements to enhance mechanical grip.

Given the current economic climate and state of road racing, I think having your doors open is doing alright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

Given the current economic climate and state of road racing, I think having your doors open is doing alright.

---

Amen. Unfortunately, some of us come from racing backgrounds where a new chassis and motor was as easy as a phone call away. Of course, you didn't see any chassis in the first half of the field older than 3 or 4 years old. I guess when you sell that many chassis it makes sense to keep a few in stock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quickshoe

Amen. Unfortunately, some of us come from racing backgrounds where a new chassis and motor was as easy as a phone call away. Of course, you didn't see any chassis in the first half of the field older than 3 or 4 years old. I guess when you sell that many chassis it makes sense to keep a few in stock.

---

The inventory turn over for frames on post 94 Citations has been zero. I consider the frame in stock as an unsold kit. We have had them crushed from the front, the rear, the side and the top. The only chassis repair that I have done is to repair cracks caused by the mountings for the skid blocks.

As the chassis have advanced to accommodate ever better tires, they are becoming more crash resistant. I am certain the VD is having the same experience.

I may be unique in that all my drivers tend to be veterans.

I don't mean to imply that requiring a new chassis every 3 years or so would be good for the class. When the rules and the technology almost require newer chassis to remain competitive there are a lot more chassis being manufactured, therefore just a phone call away.

It's still a capitalistic market, following the laws of supply and demand. Unfortunately, the demand isn't sufficient to build cars for inventory. The number of manufacturers that have tried to build a company on formula car production and have failed far exceeds the number that have succeeded. Guys like Steve and Doug are probably happy to cover their costs of production. Making a decent return on investment is largely a dream.

The pro realm is less sensitive to price, but far more sensitive to technology--as in a winning chassis. Reynard and Lola are excellent examples. They both built small formula cars for a while, and were reasonably successful (as in profitable). They stepped up to the big money in Indy cars and lasted for only a few years.

While I have never been a big fan of Ralph Firman, I admire the fact that he was able to build and sustain a viable business for more than 20 years as Van Diemen. Today most of the formula car manufacturers put out 5 or 10 cars in a year. If you tried to build a business plan based solely on formula car manufacturing (including tooling, engineering and support), you'd be pretty depressed after about 20 minutes of running the numbers!

International Racing Products has been in business for nearly 20 years. I've sold over $1 million in formula car spares and support equipment. I have a fairly large portion of the domestic formula car parts business, and I even have a reasonable amount of export business. In spite of this, I haven't been able to build IRP to the point where I can make a living from it. The only reason I'm not swallowed by folks like Pegasus is that they sell generic items, while I carry specialty make pieces for the likes of Reynard, Zink and Van Diemen. I assume they considered stocking such things, estimated the inventory turnover rates and came to the conclusion that people like me are crazy! It's probably a valid conclusion, since I can count the number of years that I've made a profit on one hand. I admire Pegasus, too, as they have built a very successful business by supporting a much broader base than just formula cars. Others have succeeded by including prep shop work or running drivers or starting a series.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Robinson II

Nathan,
Is the bottom of the side pods even with the floor pan?

---

Only at one point ;).

Quote:

---

I now see your understanding of the rule concerning the protection panels not being a stress bearing panel but was thrown at first due to your explanation of the fasteners used in the chassis tubes, seems extreme for non load bearing panels...

---

There are two terms that have sometimes been used interchangeably here, but they are very different from a rules standpoint.

"Stress-bearing panels" are defined in the GCR as panels that are attached with centers closer than six inches. That's been the definition since at least 1985, and perhaps earlier (anyone know?). Our cockpit protection panels are not stress-bearing panels.

"Structural panels," on the other hand, could be defined as any panel that contributes to the stiffness and strength of a car. This is a much more ambiguous term, since even floppy fiberglass bodywork, mounted to the car in only a few places, contribute to chassis stiffness in some measure. Our cockpit protection panels are definitely structural, but that is not prohibited in the GCR...except in the FB rules.

A well-written rule is one that can clearly and easily be interpreted and, more importantly, measured in an objective way. That's why the six-inch rule for "stress-bearing panels" is so clever, and a term like "structural" or "load bearing" panels would be a bad choice for rules language.

Hope that helps! I didn't mean to ignore your questions for so long, but there have been a number of postings on this thread...lol.

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

Only at one point ;).


Nathan

---

So the floor pan and the side pods create a tunnel that compresses the air and exits at the start of the diffuser, there by making the diffuser more effective and locating the center of under car aero balance, right?

and this is where the clarification about the floor pan being relatively parallel to the ground would make your car illegal?

John

Hi John:

No, that's not how the car is designed, air is directed around and under the sidepods like an F1 car. I believe your approach would be illegal per the current rules, involving openings in the bodywork not used for heat exchangers or engine air intake. Interesting idea, though!

You are correct, though, that the proposed new rules would make our car illegal since our floor pan is not "approximately parallel" to the ground...depending on how you define "approximately," of course! ;)

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larry

While I have never been a big fan of Ralph Firman...

---

Larry,
Would you mind expanding your comment?

In my brief exposure to formula cars, the only criticisms I have heard of Van Diemen is that some of the hardware is substandard and that the cars are turned out rather quickly and need to checked carefully before being run.

Thanks!

Ivin

I'm no expert on his products, but I do know of an occasional chassis that hasn't been true. How prevalent this was, I do not know. My comment was more aimed at Ralph's personality than his products, but as I said, I have a certain amount of admiration for anyone that can be successful over the long haul in building formula cars. There just aren't many that can do it! Therefore, most of the people in the business do it out of love of the sport. Occasionally someone gets too deep into it and they do some questionable things while trying to make a go of it. Fortunately, this is a small community and the word gets out fast!

Right now I'm about 75% through restoring a 1972 Titan. Titan built several hundred cars (as best I can tell), but eventually moved into an area that seemed either more profitable or more stable. Titan Engineering still exists, and they still make oil pumps, steering racks and other components. They survived by evolving. Others just kind of disappeared. I sincerely hope that we have more folks producing formula cars in the near future--and I would especially like to see US manufacturers. As I mentioned, I've run the numbers, and it would take a HUGE amount of capital to set up a 100% dedicated operation to formula car production. Radon seems to have addressed this through shared facilities with someone involved in aerospace.

The cost driver may be the reason for the lack of progress in chassis design during the last 10-15 years (or longer). It's definitely a two-edged sword, though. It keeps older cars competitive for a longer period, but there are very few new cars entering, which means there is no trickle-down.

Many of you know that I'm a fan of AJ Pugliese's Banshee. It is Formula Ford-like in it's performance, but it uses an aircooled VW engine. It's a real race car, and it can be purchased NEW for under $20K! Complete! Compared to $60K FB and what I expect will be $75K FC, the Banshee is a great bargain. They run it in FRCCA, which is solely a formula car group (No Miata's to contend with for track time!)

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

Does anyone know what happened in the Double Secret Secret Constructors meeting that no one was supposed to know about???

Rumer has it that anyone might be able to build anything and it will be legal.

Rumer has it that adding wieght to slow down cars might be in the future of certain race series.

Rumer has it that 20 car fields are going to be the norm next year in all classes of open wheel racing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Foschi

Does anyone know what happened in the Double Secret Secret Constructors meeting that no one was supposed to know about???

Rumer has it that anyone might be able to build anything and it will be legal.

Rumer has it that adding wieght to slow down cars might be in the future of certain race series.

Rumer has it that 20 car fields are going to be the norm next year in all classes of open wheel racing.

---

Just when the thread had been staying on topic.... :rolleyes:
Did you intend to say, "[FONT=Verdana]Rumor has it that..."? (Rumer is the daughter of Bruce Wills & Demi Moore)[/FONT]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Foschi

Rumer has it that 20 car fields are going to be the norm next year in all classes of open wheel racing.

---

that's a HUGE car gain for some series, I guess a few more 13 year olds won Mega Millions? :o

(almost said something I'd regret later...ain't the Internet grand?) ;)

Nathan

I guess that means you 3 had no info?

I'm just asking a simple question, nothing more. You guys got to stop reading into this stuff.

I'm not reading into anything.

It's a fairly well established fact that there are very few series who can maintain acceptable car counts.



and I'm still tired of all the bickering and BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HazelNut

I'm not reading into anything.

It's a fairly well established fact that there are very few series who can maintain acceptable car counts.



and I'm still tired of all the bickering and BS.

---

Thanks for the facts, I thought that was only a rumer also, now I can sleep easy tonight...and I don't bicker..yes you do...no I don't...yes...

who cares about the cf panels....it seems the red herring is the floor/sidepod configuration and subsequent aero advantage

Well! In or out?

The Radon would have to be built and show up at a SCCA event to know if it will be in or out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

The Radon would have to be built and show up at a SCCA event to know if it will be in or out.

---

I don't think that's totally true Mike, I think they could submit the plans and get a yea or nea before they spend anymore time, effort and money.
But, when I read your line I had a vision that you looked a little like Nancy Pelosi when she said that we would have to pass the healthcare bill BEFORE we see what's in it.

Mike,

I'm researching... but i believe you can 'self-protest' yourself on individual items in question. Talking to tech folks, etc, at the Runoffs, no one had ever heard of 'self-protesting' the plans for a complete car. Maybe a first?

And just because the plans might be judged legal, the car could be built differently. The true acid test is when it arrives at impound, or tries to get a logbook.

And we all now know from this thread 5 pages ago that the homolagation process proves little in terms of complete car legality. :(

Mike,

That process is way too complicated for me, I can't imagine that if detailed plans or even a sketch on a bar napkin were sent to SCCA for advice or clarification or just to find out if they were in the ballpark that you would get no good info back. Even though at times we are all at each others thoats on here does not mean that MOST of us can not remain friendly, and thus still get good info back from the right people, especially SCCA. Take you and I for example, no matter what you say behind my back that gets back to me I know you still like me.

M. Foschi

P.S. Have I mentioned that you are doing a great job lately?

Self "friendly" protests used to get done somewhat often way back in the pre-no-common-sense days, but it was always at the track. For new designs, the Chairman of the CRB used to actually request blueprints or actually go to the factory (sometimes flying to England to do so) to look the cars over before homologation was granted, and many times homologation was refused until the offending design features were fixed. Cars that were deliverd and showed up at the track with the offending design features still intact were denied log books until they were brought into line. Not sure when, but somewhere along the line post-John Grubb, that authority, or at least the practice of it, was relegated to the back burner.

Foschi wrote:

I can't imagine that if detailed plans or even a sketch on a bar napkin were sent to SCCA for advice or clarification or just to find out if they were in the ballpark that you would get no good info back.

Some folks thought they did that last year. I'm guessing they just didn't talk to the "right" people in the SCCA. ;)

Mike,

Janice says I should not post on Saturday night after toasting many times to Brandon, and his crew guy "Mr. Shill". I should always listen to her. :)
After 4 years I'm starting to get the hang of all you Long Island guys. Ol' man Scarallo, and occasionly Mr. Burke, keep me in training when you aren't around. And... OBTW, you have 'ears' everywhere. I test them every chance I get. Your ears should be burning every couple of weeks.
One of the "highlights" of my short career was at M-O a few years ago. You "protesting" in one ear, and Stimola yelling in the other. I knew i must be doing something right. :D
You are still a PIA, but a lovable PIA.

I do not believe there are restrictions to how a car can be modified after homologation. In the case of the side panels being discusses here, they could be added at a later time.

Brian

Cars can indeed be modified after homologation, BUT, the modifications still have to be legal.

My responce in red.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

Foschi wrote:

I can't imagine that if detailed plans or even a sketch on a bar napkin were sent to SCCA for advice or clarification or just to find out if they were in the ballpark that you would get no good info back.

Some folks thought they did that last year. I'm guessing they just didn't talk to the "right" people in the SCCA. ;)
Are you insinuating the the SCCA screwed them? If so who? I find it hard to believe that after almost 500 posts Nathen or Camadella didn't say that Billy Joe Bob at SCCA told us that it was all honky dorry after we sent them our plans. I'd have to hear that from some one at SCCA for me to believe it.


Mike,

Janice says I should not post on Saturday night after toasting many times to Brandon, and his crew guy "Mr. Shill". I should always listen to her. :) I have no idea what that means...toasting Brandon for what ...and who's his Shill? It sounds like you were having one of the series meetings with Johnny Walker, Jim Beam, Jack Daniels and Captain Morgan.:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:
After 4 years I'm starting to get the hang of all you Long Island guys. Ol' man Scarallo, and occasionly Mr. Burke, keep me in training when you aren't around. And... OBTW, you have 'ears' everywhere. I test them every chance I get. Your ears should be burning every couple of weeks.
One of the "highlights" of my short career was at M-O a few years ago. You "protesting" in one ear, and Stimola yelling in the other. I knew i must be doing something right. :D If Joe and myself were yelling at you at the same time I'm sure it was because something was NOT done right.
You are still a PIA, but a lovable PIA.

---

Quote:

---

I have no idea what that means...toasting Brandon for what ...and who's his Shill? It sounds like you were having one of the series meetings with Johnny Walker, Jim Beam, Jack Daniels and Captain Morgan.:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:

---

I believe he was toasting Brandon Dixon for winning the FB runoffs. I am "Mr. Shill" although I prefer the title of "Brandon's sidekick."

The "Mr. Shill" thing is a joke from when I was accused of being a shill for Citation since I pointed out what I believe are questionable areas on the Radon and at some point the debate was clouded into a Citation vs. Radon issue, which it never was.

I just spent an hour of my life reading this f'ing thread only to find out that the main problem is that certain parts are not "Well hung" Sounds like Nathan's just needs to throw some "Extenze" on the panels and the will become "Well Hung"

Maybe it's true maybe it's not. I just needed to get a chuckle out of the hour I just spent.

I was lucky enough to see the Radon chassis, body parts and the boatload of extremely trick bits that Nathan has assembled yesterday at the Radon shop. As someone who had owned a Stohr for 6 years, it reminded me of one. It also reminded me that many cars can run in the same class and eventually some smart dude will come a long and build a better mousetrap. I think that's where the Radon is. I was speaking with Nathan it was almost like speaking with Lee Stohr. Both I think are incredibly talented people who have a drive do better than what's currently out there. As a Van Diemen owner, I would think these cars are going to give even the best drivers (me not being one of them) in Van Diemen's a run for their money. It seems like everything is so detail oriented. My car looks like a drunken Limey built it. The Radon looked like each aspect of the car was brainstormed on the from both a functional and maintenance standpoint. Just really well thought out. I hope this is a wake-up call to the rest of the builders out their to start building a better mousetrap.

Well I can now say that "what ever this car cost to purchase, it would be worth it" the Quality of the parts and the attention to detail that is going into this car is by far much greater than the other cars I have seen out there. I will say I have not seen a Stohr up close so I would have to leave that car out. Weather this car is legal or not legal I do not know enough about the rules to make that decision. I can say that over time I think a car builders job is to innovate and make cars safer and go faster, and I can tell you the innovation and the safety parts of this car look to be well taken care of and we will see how the faster part plays out. I mean we are on the track to go faster and race harder.

If I had the money I would be next in line for one just for the innovation and safety

Mark

I'm not proclaiming to be a guru on the rules but what I will say is the cockpit protection looked to be on par if not better than the Stohr. There were specific point of entry that are reinforced with a high end CF and from a build standpoint again looked like a Stohr cockpit. I had seen pictures of Jon Hill's crash many moons ago and I think the carbon panels probably went a long way to helping him walk out of it without a scratch. It looked like a tubeframe sausage with not much else left hanging on the body but the cockpit panels and some tubes. Not knocking our class but DSR's are a hell of a lot faster than our cars.

I'm not sure how the whole rule thing will end up but if anyone on the board cares about safety, they need to really take a look at what Nathan has done on an FC. What I saw nothing from a cockpit safety standpoint that could not be retrofitted on a Van Diemen I can't believe anyone on the board would deny any of us being in a safer car. . If they would for personal reasons, they need to be given the boot. I'm still not sure why the initial rules governing direction of the FF and FC cars was dictated by the manufacturers. Isn't that like the tax man dictating tax policy. We are a club that should be providing the guidelines based on safety first and performance second and not let the people who takes the checks from us dictate what the saftey and design parameters should be. I'm a computer engineer and not a car designer but I have stuck my dumbass in enough race cars over the years to know that the Radon is safer than the car I currently drive. It also looks like from an aero standpoint that it is a lot more aero friendly than that the brick I currently drive.

I don't know a lot of the people in FC but the more I look into this whole thing the more it looks like it has the making of a conspiracy novel with a select few on this forum being the stars.

Performance 1st, safety a distant 2nd. This is motor racing. If you are worried so much about safety, find another hobby.

You have to admire how this possible Radon chassis performance issue has/is being painted over with possible safety attributes. Obviously, we need all the safety we can get, safety first and performance improvement a secondary benefit. Well done....

Brian

Brian:
I have an extreme desire to be racing when I'm an old guy like a lot of others in the SCCA. If I have an option to drive a very competitive car that is safer than the other cars in my class and I can afford it, why wouldn't I?

As far as racing being dangerous, crossing the frigging street is dangerous. That's doesn't mean I should walk across when cars are coming when I can wait till there isn't.
I have an option to pick the safer route to the same end. I think my thought is the same on the race car as well.


Jimmy

Brian, I was a Parachute Rigger for a bit when I was in the Marines.
They all used to say, you wouldn't pick the parachute with the hole in it if you could pick one without. I look at this as similiar. I moved to fixing helicopters because the are so much safer than fixed wing (not). If the Radon and a new Van Diemen or Firman were the same price, why not get the safer one thats probably going to perform better as well.

Like I mentioned, I'm a computer guy not a car designer but I have driven a **** loads of different cars and currently own a Van Diemen F2000, Wheeler DSR, Speads CSR, Dallara F301 Formula 3, Porsche 930 Porsche 951, Lotus Exige and Subaru STi that are on the track at one time or another. I've also owned a few Radicals, an Indy Lites Lola, both CSR and DSR Stohr, 2003 Van Diemen F2000 and a few assorted other race cars a long the way. If given a chance to make the car safer or faster, I'll take safer first. Can't really race when you're worm farming or being fed gerber baby food through a straw. I also think feeling more comfortable with the car lets you drive quicker as well.

I think I've spouted off enough for one day. Pick your poison and enjoy.

Jimmy

There is simply no question that safety is of paramount importance. I am not against the saftey design siisues that have been designed into the Radon. However there are a couple of very key legality issues WRT the Radon that MUST be resolved.

Let's forget for a moment about the lagality of the carbon panels. These panels as designed may provide a safety improvement. Let's assume that they do & that carbon panels are approved by a clarification of the rules. (they could also be made out of other materials if the carbon currently in use is not approved.

My major concern is Nathan's interpretation of the "bottom of the car" rules. Nathan is convinced that the belly pan of the chassis can be at a significantly different angle than the rest of the bottom of the car, specifically the bottom of the body (side pods).

Now perhaps many of you have not thought of the very significant implications of this interpretation. I suggest that you do so.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

Tunnel.


:thumbsdown:

As someone who lived through the whole DSR tunnel evolution, I would say this doesn't look like a tunnel. As someone who has actually seen the parts, I may be at an advantage in understanding what it actually looks like. From what I was told, if the cars are deemed legal, they'll be at the turkey trot at sebring. Maybe people could actually see it before they come to ANY conclusion. You know ACTUALLY look at it before deeming it Satan. As someone who has ACTUALLY seen it, I would recommend you look at my Dallara F301. It looks a lot like it. I mean a lot. I'm not involved with Radon nor do I know Nathan very well. I was over Glen's Phillips shop dropping off some stuff and was invited to go see what Nathan was up too. I was pretty impressed with what I saw.

I think the announcement on the legality of the car is due out at the end of the month.
I'm sure that if it is deemed legal, there will be pictures posted. Nathan is selling these things and I assume would want as many people to see the car as possible.
Again, thought it was pretty cool and I think most of the people who run an FC will as well as well. The only people who will hate it are people who make cars based old technology. I would think then you will either be very pissed or go and make your car as good as the Radon. Nathan doesn't have a lock on Brain Matter.

I would add that nothing I saw was so far ahead that Firman or one of the other car makers couldn't do as good of a car or better. They just actually have to go ahead and do it. I would think the first year out the Radon will do very well and then the others will start upping their game and making add on's and new cars that are on par with it or become CFC's. It's called Evolution folks. If it didn't exists, you'd be a friggin monkey!!!!!


Jimmy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

It's called Evolution folks. If it didn't exists, you'd be a friggin monkey!!!!!
Jimmy

---

Great now we get the debate the theory of evolution;););)

There are cleary "missing links" between the older cars and the radon, therefore this must be creation by intelligent design lol :tire:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Carter

Tunnel.


:thumbsdown:

---

How so?

Wouldn't it be funny if the car actually made it to the track one day and was a pig. All this over something so few have had the privilege of seeing and it hasn't turned a wheel yet.

I guess it is the end of the season now, so maybe the debate over a non-existing car can really heat up.

I agree, it could be a huge bomb. Look at all the free advertising Radon has gotten. You couldn't buy this type of hype. The funny part of it is the people who was making all the hype are people involved with the other manufacturers. They are probably hurting themselves the most by generating this much controversy. This reminds of the phrase "Circular Firing Squad"

Jimmy from Easton, what do you do for a living.

Seeing the list of cars you have owned, I need to change professions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlakeRacer

How so?

---

If you allow a "floorpan" that is not parallel to the ground, and is not the lowest point of the chassis, with vertical sides on the edges, you are creating ground effects tunnels. Nathan may have not used this to it's fullest advantage, but someone will if deemed legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jtovo

so maybe the debate over a non-existing car can really heat up.

---

It is a existing car.

Mark

Steve, I'm a gynocologist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jtovo

Wouldn't it be funny if the car actually made it to the track one day and was a pig. All this over something so few have had the privilege of seeing and it hasn't turned a wheel yet.

---

I think peoples' concerns are not so much about this model (although it might be a step up), as much as it could open the door to many various designs that may not look (or perform) very much like traditional FC designs.

I don't know if this is a good analogy, but it might be like how designers in the past used non-traditional interpretations to find loopholes that allowed sucker cars (powered by cooling fans), skirts, wings mounted on suspension, etc.