Radon photos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RussMcB

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.

---

Russ, I think you have it correct. The true question is whether the membership wants to see a change in the direction of the design and build of FF/FC cars. Given the significant steps taken to insure that older engines were not relegated uncompetitive in these classes one has to question as to how "liberal" the chassis rules should or should not be interpreted. This is not an issue of the legality of a single car, but rather one that goes to a "diametric change in the DNA of FF/FC car construction". (quoting a former FC National Champion)

FWIW, note that there is no limitation on the number of engines permitted...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fvracer27

It is a existing car.

Mark

---

How is it done on track?

Jim,

I hope that you are better at your job than you are at spelling :confused:

Are you sure you are not a proctologist since you seem to be stuck on Radon is great???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jtovo

How is it done on track?

---

Does not have to be on track to exist.

John:
I ran one pro race this year at Lime Rock. I ran a Fc for a bit in 2003. Almost all the same cars were there 7 years will later. Eventually these cars are not going viable.
What do you suggest, keep making cars that are the same for 10 years at a whack. I have a 2000 Vd which from 1999-current I'm almost sure has had little change unless you count the Zetec motor change. If this is the path we are all heading, let's just kill off the citations (16 or so) pipers (don't know maybe (5) and just have Van Diemens which make up the majority of the FC class and just have Spec Continental!!!! The only way the class will prosper is to allow innovation. We need to move the class forward. The membership was ok with limiting the Zetec output to allow it to be the motor moving forward for the class. I'm sure this issue can be resolved without making older designs forever.

John, you contacted me via the survey. Was there a count of up or down on the aspects of the Radon that are causing the controversy?

This is a club. Let the car come out and see how it does. If it is a game changer, work on parity measures for a few years to allow the other manufacturers to catch up. Killing anything that makes some of the cars "Not front runners" is a receipe for killing the class.


Is it me or are most of the people making a stink about this have the Citation logo at their avatar?

Steve, are you sure your not a proctologist. Your acting like an *******

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.

---

The problem is going to be when someone who has experience and knows what they are doing builds a car to the new rules that will be required to allow the Radon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

The funny part of it is the people who was making all the hype are people involved with the other manufacturers.

---

No. That has been the way that some people have tried to phrase the debate to try to question people's motivations for pointing out how illegal the car is.

Steve, I'm not stuck on Radon is great as much as I'm getting to see how much this whole controversy seems to be being ginned up by a certain group of people who are aligned with another manufacturer.

If being stuck on something that I think has a lot of potential, is innovative, could attract more people to the class, and is safer than what I currently drive then I am stuck on Radon then.

You don't have to agree or like what I say but you don't have to be an asssole.
I think you should go **** yourself if you cannot allow me to express my thoughts on a public forum. I am an owner of an Fc and a member in good standing in the SCCA where these cars run. Am I only allowed to post things that you agree with. I would hope I can at least speak my peace. What I've stated is my opinion, nothing else. Your entitled to yours as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

Steve, I'm not stuck on Radon is great as much as I'm getting to see how much this whole controversy seems to be being ginned up by a certain group of people who are aligned with another manufacturer.

---

There are a bunch of posts in here that point out how that really is not true. Repeating it will not make it true.

Wren, (As a matter of fact anyone) so when you saw the chassis, parts, drawings ,etc, what did you think of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

Wren, (As a matter of fact anyone) so when you saw the chassis, parts, drawings ,etc, what did you think of it?

---

I have not seen those things. Maybe when I get to see the complete car, there will be more things as blatently illegal as the panels. I guess we won't know until the time comes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

I'm not stuck on Radon is great as much as I'm getting to see how much this whole controversy seems to be being ginned up by a certain group of people who are aligned with another manufacturer.

If being stuck on something that I think has a lot of potential, is innovative, could attract more people to the class, and is safer than what I currently drive then I am stuck on Radon then.

You don't have to agree or like what I say but you don't have to be an asssole.
I think you should go **** yourself if you cannot allow me to express my thoughts on a public forum. I am an owner of an Fc and a member in good standing in the SCCA where these cars run. Am I only allowed to post things that you agree with. I would hope I can at least speak my peace. What I've stated is my opinion, nothing else. Your entitled to yours as well.

---

Ok, that's enough.

First, you couldn't be more wrong with your first comment. Plain and simple, wrong. It is wholly untrue. Period.

Second, your behavior here is completely out of bounds. In case you haven't been paying attention since you registered in 2005, we do not allow name calling, flame-baiting and the kind of behavior you are displaying in your last post. I have deleted accounts and banned IPs for similar actions, sir.

Forgive the skepticism here, as this thread had virtually died before you cam back making hefty claims about a car that by most accounts, isn't even a roller yet, and not even close to it. Your previous posts have come off as some sort of shill, which to many people looked suspicious, at best.

Bring it down a few notches, have a cold one, and relax. We're all friends here (mostly ;)). You are more than entitled to your opinion, sure, but when it becomes contentious and unable to be expressed without attacking someone else who disagrees with you, I tend to get itchy.




First warning, last warning. :yellowflag:

Wren, is it not true that crash structures are allowed to be of carbon?

Doug, thanks for the impartiality.
====================================
Jim,

I hope that you are better at your job than you are at spelling :confused:

Are you sure you are not a proctologist since you seem to be stuck on Radon is great???
=====================================
Good thing name calling and insulting are off limits. Or maybe just for me.

Jim, I think you have sunk to a new low, :( but to attempt to answer your questions

First one can develop cars within the parameter of the rules as they exist. Whether the Radon falls within those parameters has yet to be determined. If the membership is unhappy with those parameters then they need to be changed.

Second, there is nothing before any Board that I am aware of which addresses the legality of the Radon.

Finally, read the GCR and the FF/FC rules for yourself and then ask questions.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

Good thing name calling and insulting are off limits. Or maybe just for me.

---

Telling someone "to go **** themselves" was way out of bounds. Keep pushing me and you'll find yourself on the outside looking in.


:mad:

John I remember you speaking with me the other day trying to convince me the carbon would shatter if hit without actually seeing it or knowing that the Stohr have a very similar construction of the cockpit. Do you remember me sending you the picture of the Stohr or even having that conversation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

Wren, is it not true that crash structures are allowed to be of carbon?

---

Front and rear crush structures are specifically allowed to be made out of carbon, no question about that. Front crush structures have a lot of good rules about how they may be made(layers, minimum frontal area, attachment, etc.), that keep people making good crush structures but prevent someone from making an all carbon nose. The rear crush structure rules could probably use some cleaning up.

Other things are allowed to be made of carbon also when specifically allowed (radiator ducting, etc.). Carbon interior panels are even allowed to be made of carbon. Those panels are either part of the frame or they are bodywork (see latest fastrack for what will be considered bodywork), but they are not interior panels. My opinion is that they are part of the frame, especially since Radon chose to use the frame rules to decide how to attach them (6" centers). Carbon is not allowed in either bodywork or the frame which are the only two options for what they are.

So far we have heard a lot of explanations of what these panels are to try to force them to fit into the GCR. Is the latest explanation that they are crush structures?

Wren I saw the panels in question friday. They are interior panels. I've blown my load for the evening. I'm convinced I had a complete dilusion last friday. I wasn't at Radon. I wasn't looking at all the parts in question. I was on magic mushrooms. Sorry vocalizing my halucination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

Wren I saw the panels in question friday. They are interior panels. I've blown my load for the evening. I'm convinced I had a complete dilusion last friday. I wasn't at Radon. I wasn't looking at all the parts in question. I was on magic mushrooms. Sorry vocalizing my halucination.

---

If they are outside the chassis, they aren't interior panels. They are bodywork.

Jim,

Again, read the GCR. I am not trying to convince you of anything. You are trying to flame an argument. What is or is not allowed in DSR is not relevant to this discussion as FF/FC cars have their own specific rules. If you want them changed then put together a proposal to do so.

John

Wren you are right. So when you actually saw what you are so convinced is on the outside and claimed by you to be bodywork, where does is actually touch the external lines of the car? I am more than amused by the few people who have made a lot of comments about something they have not even seen. how can any of you make the statements you are making without having seen ANY of what you are commenting on?

John, I understand I am no longer running in DSR. What I am stating is that you were making statements about the panels not being safe and would shatter. I merely disagreed with you and explained that the Stohr had the same type of panels and that John Hill had a huge crash and the panels did not shatter. I then sent you a picture of the cockpit of the Stohr. My statement was a reply to you stating they would shatter. We had a 30 minute conversation in which you jumped from reason to reason on why it should not be legal until you finally went with what you stated in your last post. It really comes down to the possible obsolescence of some of the FC's out there. you stated that it should be up to the club membership to decide. I could not agree more.

Was I not on the same call as you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

The problem is going to be when someone who has experience and knows what they are doing builds a car to the new rules that will be required to allow the Radon.

---

Nor does repeating your assumption that Radon/Nathan has no experience and does not know what they are doing make it so. The personal slams you consistently make detract from what I believe you intend to state. :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darrin Teeter

Nor does repeating your assumption that Radon/Nathan has no experience and does not know what they are doing make it so. The personal slams you consistently make detract from what I believe you intend to state. :thumbsdown:

---

Everyone I talk to is more concerned about son of Radon than Radon itself.

I understand that your company "Fiber Dynamics" actually made the panels for the Radon and it may have been in exchange for a car, or credit on a car. Is that correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

Wren you are right. So when you actually saw what you are so convinced is on the outside and claimed by you to be bodywork, where does is actually touch the external lines of the car? I am more than amused by the few people who have made a lot of comments about something they have not even seen. how can any of you make the statements you are making without having seen ANY of what you are commenting on?

---

Ummm, there are pictures in the first post of this thread?

A panel extending outside the chassis could easily be considered bodywork given the latest COA ruling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

Everyone I talk to is more concerned about son of Radon than Radon itself."

---

[quote=Wren;272937]

Understood. Everyone I talk to is more concerned about improved safety & innovation in the class. Better mousetraps will continue to be made. It was good to see RFR breaking away from tradition (although that seems to be viewed differently). I understand & respect why some may be opposed, but this is a Formula class and the legality of the car is up to the SCCA. I hope for the sake of the class that it does not continue to stagnate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

I understand that your company "Fiber Dynamics" actually made the panels for the Radon and it may have been in exchange for a car, or credit on a car. Is that correct?

---

You are correct that my company has made many parts for Radon. The rest is speculation and is really no one's business. Do I have a vested interest? Yes, what is your point? Aside from my letter to the CRB (in which I fully disclosed my position), I've steered clear of any conflicts of interest. I love motorsports and I am glad to have the opportunity to be a part of this project. I wish other constructors the best and hope that we have spurred some long-overdue innovation in the class. The prospect of racing a more modern, affordable chassis is what lured me to this class and I trust fresh designs will bring others as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by provamo

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

---

like i said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Carter

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.

---

The GCR requires a flat undertray from the rear of the front tire to the front of the rear tire (for FC). That has to be the lowest part of the car and cannot have raised sections that would make a tunnel. There is even a specific prohibition against venturi tunnels with an accompanying illustration.

The Rn.10 has a full length floor pan that is welded to the lower main frame rails and fulfills the main purpose of the floor pan, which is to protect the driver. That floor pan is not horizontal, nor is it coincident with the undertray, but neither is required by the rules.

The GCR also prohibits openings in the bodywork that are not used for engine cooling or intake. I'm confident the Court of Appeals would find any aerodynamic tunnel above the undertray to violate this prohibition.

The Radon Rn.10 does not have tunnels. No air flows through the bodywork except through the sidepods and radiators. In my opinion it is impossible to build a car with tunnels that complies with the current rules, irrespective of the floorpan configuration, but I'm not very experienced nor do I know what I'm doing. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Carter

Forgive the skepticism here, as this thread had virtually died before you cam back making hefty claims about a car that by most accounts, isn't even a roller yet, and not even close to it. Your previous posts have come off as some sort of shill, which to many people looked suspicious, at best.

---

I have met Jim twice, once at the Lime Rock pro race this year and the second time last Friday, when he stopped by the shop with Glen Phillips. He has no affiliation with Radon Sport; in fact he owns and races a Van Diemen FC car. I did not ask him to post on this thread, and in fact I would have discouraged him had he asked me. I do appreciate his praise!

I don't know about "most accounts" but since I'm now sitting about 20 feet from the shop I would tend to trust my own eyes more than your sources...but maybe I'm on the same hallucinogens that Jim mentioned. ;)

Nathan

Nathan, sorry if i restarted a **** storm. I was impressed with what I saw and thought most people would be as well. I would say that coming from a class where it was very much a community and people truly appreciated clever designs, FC seems to be very different.

I thought that it was VERY odd that people had so much input and opinion on things they had never seen. I think that car will be a lot safer than what is currently out there. I'm not a car designer and can't really state definitely that it will be faster. But I do own an FC and am entitled to my opinion based on WHAT I ACTUALLY SAW. I would also add that there are a lot of clever people building cars and I can't imagine that you will be the only person striving to build a better mousetrap. I will add you probably will be the catalyst for the others to step it up though.

I repeat, I have met Nathan twice and have no affiliation with him or his company. Just appreciate truly clever cars. That I am guilty of.

Jim,
Just trying to liven up the discussion a bit.;)

Nothing personal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

Steve, are you sure your not a proctologist. Your acting like an *******

---

Steve I don't know from Adam. I'm sure your a good guy. I'm sorry if you took the "go **** yourself" personally. I guess I'm not a proctologist and you can un **** yourself.
I think most racers are short wicked and a little off. Why else would you attempt to kill yourself for a little $5 piece of wood few times a year.

I'm sure this will all come out in the wash or should I say track. I just thought what I saw was pretty cool legal or not. I'm not the person who will make that decision but the car is very cool just the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fvracer27

Does not have to be on track to exist.

---

Is that like USF1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

If they are outside the chassis, they aren't interior panels. They are bodywork.

---

Wren,

You keep asserting this, but I have yet to spot where it is actually stated in the GCR. Could you kindly point that section out, or discontinue making false assertions?


Cheers,
Rennie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jtovo

Is that like USF1?

---

Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Ex`ist´
v. i. 1. To be as a fact and not as a mode; to have an actual or real being, whether material or spiritual.
[imp. & p. p. Existed; p. pr. & vb. n. Existing.]
Who now, alas! no more is missed
Than if he never did exist.
- Swift.
To conceive the world . . . to have existed from eternity.
- South.
2. To be manifest in any manner; to continue to be; as, great evils existed in his reign.
3. To live; to have life or the functions of vitality; as, men can not exist in water, nor fishes on land.

USF1 did exist ask the many people who purchased there non existing parts and equipment at auction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rennie Clayton

Wren,

You keep asserting this, but I have yet to spot where it is actually stated in the GCR. Could you kindly point that section out, or discontinue making false assertions?


Cheers,
Rennie

---

I don't keep asserting it, I think I might have mentioned it twice on Sunday while throwing out there what those panels might be.

I based that on a COA ruling that anything extending past the chassis was bodywork. That COA ruling was specifically mentioning floor but it is hardly a stretch to apply that to more than the floor.

The ruling was also an FA ruling, but it was referencing the tech glossary, so I doubt that the words in the tech glossary mean different things to different classes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fvracer27

USF1 did exist ask the many people who purchased there non existing parts and equipment at auction.

---

The people who lost their money to them might feel differently, along with the people who were never paid for their equipment. Did they every actually make any parts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

The people who lost their money to them might feel differently, along with the people who were never paid for their equipment. Did they every actually make any parts?

---

You mean aside from the 70-thousand toasters? :o

Wren, you crack me up. Do you make up stuff when it suits you. Bend them twist them, interpret then to suit your needs. Love it.

"That COA ruling was specifically mentioning floor but it is hardly a stretch to apply that to more than the floor."


Too funny.

Rennie, thanks for speaking up.

From a engineering point of view, why would the floor pan not be in the same location as the under-tray? Is this an attempt to make better use of the lower frame rails as lower control arm mounting points? A simpler and thus lighter frame?

Brian

Ok, this has gone on far too long. Let's let the SCCA CRB and Bod figure out if this car is legal or not, and where the class is heading. The bickering is going nowhere.