Printable View
Wren I think he ( swiftdrivr) was talking about ' zangy's' post which bans the DB-1 from racing nationals period while also banning every existing car from running till they add euro sidepods among other things he wanted changed. * That * proposal would kill the class overnight.
Ahhhh. I see that now. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFirlein
Yes, that would be an exceedingly bad idea.
[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri]It would be nice to clearly understand the motivation for the significant rules change proposal. I hope it is not designed to specifically eliminate competition. Being a small business man myself, I do not have the ability to change the rules to beat my competitors. I must be consistently better than them to win. My services and products must be continuously improved to remain competitive. Clayton Christenson of Harvard talks regularly about Disruptive Technologies. What he says is that successful ventures fail at the pinnacle of success because the fail to recognize changes in the market as well as new competition. Several firms have found this out. I am in the technology business and can look to WANG, Digital, Data General and others to see how this proved true.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri]I am an avid FC competitor and have been driving for many years. I think we all have seen our ranks dwindle over the years. The main reason for that is that we have had very few new cars in both the FC and FF classes in several years. While we stand by and watch improvements in many other classes, we seem to be lost in the past. Without new cars, the FC and FF classes will die out and drift towards vintage.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri]My hat is off to Ralph, Nathan, and others for having the tenacity and courage to move ahead knowing that the old resistance will try to stifle them,[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri]It’s time for new blood and a new attitude if we want to grow our class. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri]Just to be clear. I am not financially involved in any aspect of car manufacture or the F2000 Series other than a member of a Series team. I have no vested interest other than to preserve the class we all love.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Al Guibord Sr[/FONT]
I think as a driver of a car in the class, I/(Any driver in the class) have the right to know who submitted the request. How can I go about finding this out?
Jimmy
Jimmy, due to my position on the F/SRAC I am not in a position to reveal the author's name, but I have seen his name among those viewing this thread, so I know he aware of your request. And I, too, think he would do the class and his proposal a favor if he stepped up and explained/defended his submission.
I have several reservations about the proposal, which is why I voted "No" on it at the Advisory Committee.
First, to the best of my knowledge the Club has never retroactively changed the rules for a class to anywhere near this degree, and IMO we should not start now. The proposed rewrite is not a clarification and is not presented as such...it is correctly presented as a "rules change", retroactive to 1 January 1986.
Note 1: Steve Lathrop notes above that FC eliminated aluminum tub chassis in 1969, but that rule change was not retroactive...it was in effect from a certain date forward.
Note 2: Same thing for the FC (and FF) rule changes that went into effect from 1 January 1986. The new rules were written in the summer of 1985 and went into effect from a future date, and the old cars were grandfathered in.
Second, in spite of Wren's comments that he knows of no currently legal cars that would be rendered illegal, I am not so sure. Several "unintended consequences" of the new rules have already popped up, so how can anyone be certain that going forward we might not find other unintended consequences, including discovering that cars long legal are now in fact illegal? This cautionary tale is one reason the Club has avoided retroactive rule changes, and IMO it's a damned good reason.
Third, IMO the rewrite is intended to accomplish just one primary goal...render the Radon illegal by requiring the "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." This approach not only outlaws the Radon, but cleverly keeps the Citation and RFR legal, with their stepped-but-parallel lower frame rail and floorpan.
For those who defend those two chassis, I would be very interested to hear your explanation of why a parallel-but-stepped chassis that raises the nose is compliant while an angled-but-not-stepped chassis that raises the nose is not, and why you think the latter should be outlawed?
As someone without a scintilla of fiduciary interest in any of the chassis named above, I have to ask why this is being pursued, if not for blatant self-interest?
Come on you guys...you know who you are...step up and defend your proposal.
Stan:
I have always considered you as a fair and knowledgeable person. Thanks for your input. I agree with your view on things. I've sent Bob Dowie an email asking who it was. I'm sure I already know the answer. I just want people to see what is really driving this.
Thanks again. I hope you and Rennie are enjoying your summer,
Jimmy
Thank you Stan for your info.
It's been almost 43 hours since i started this thread and I still don't know who the author(s) are, or who sponsored the effort. i do have educated guesses. ;)
I find it interesting that the SCCA posts the author's name with every other proposal letter in Fastrack, but this one was left blank. So i somewhat blame the CRB for not posting the author's names. Or, if the CRB or F/SR Advisory Commitee sponsored the effort they should fess up.
If i did that much work, and was proud of the effort i would be shouting from the roof tops. :confused:
Proposals such as this can be approved by playing within the defined system. So there is no reason to participate in public forums. Also, much depends on member input, and it is known those that post on forums usually do not email their beliefs to the proper folks. Somebody(s) is betting on low member input.
I did receive an email from a racer I have always highly respected telling me that I'm just stirring the $h_T by posting on Apexspeed. My attitude is that in government or a club, rules made in the sunshine are better and have a stronger chance of creating a strong following. This proposal needs to aired and discussed, not just hustled along by a few.
[quote=Stan Clayton;308358]
First, to the best of my knowledge the Club has never retroactively changed the rules for a class to anywhere near this degree, and IMO we should not start now. The proposed rewrite is not a clarification and is not presented as such...it is correctly presented as a "rules change", retroactive to 1 January 1986.
Note 1: Steve Lathrop notes above that FC eliminated aluminum tub chassis in 1969, but that rule change was not retroactive...it was in effect from a certain date forward.
Note 2: Same thing for the FC (and FF) rule changes that went into effect from 1 January 1986. The new rules were written in the summer of 1985 and went into effect from a future date, and the old cars were grandfathered in. [quote]
Stan: a slight correction. I apologize for not providing more information in my earlier post.
As to "Note 1" the rule was retroactive and may have involved over 50 cars. The car in question had been introduced with a stressed skin and raced for years. The cars also won several back to back SCCA National championships. The protest was not over that particular design but involved another manufacturer who carried the stressed skin concept several steps too far. In the end the rules were rewritten and applied retroactively. You might be able to check the records but all Zink FV built prior to 1/1/69 had to have their frames replaced because after the stressed skin was removed they were not strong enough. This change was the first appearance of the "one inch rule".
Note2; In 1985 FC allowed monocoque construction. It also allowed VW water and air cooled engines. It also allowed some variations of European F3. The Current FC as we know it was not recognized as a class until several years later. In short, the 1986 rules only dealt with FF.
Nathan: are you saying that there is another COA ruling that involves your car and it has not been published?
All I want to see is a set of rules that state clearly that your car is legal. That way the rest of lesser intellects can get on with building cars. Unfortunately everyone else is going to have to respond to your challenge in kind. You have done a really excellent job on your car. The best since David Bruns that I have seen. And you may be setting the new standard.
Maybe the guys who are savaging the authors of this proposal could offer their own rules for consideration. Maybe if we see your rules proposal, we may find a lot we like.
Lets play the game better than those inside the beltway.
removed - my guess was wrong
Maybe there's no name attached because Nathan Ulrich submitted the proposal specifically to get everyone outraged about some evil force trying to outlaw the Radon through back room dealings, specifically to trigger so many strong objections to such a sweeping rules change as to quash any such attempts to outlaw his cars in the future. Like a full-on, Operation Northwoods-type conspiracy.
That makes as much sense as any of the other crazy theories I expect to see.
Trying to understand the benefit of the Radon angled floor.
Does the Radon angle floor provide for a raised nose while having a one piece stressed skin floor? The other cars use a two section stressed skin floor to form the raised nose design. This does not provide the same strength.
Brian
Steve:
Myself and others have offered numerous rules clarifications in the past year and a half. As far as I know, none have been considered by the F/SRAC. I believe the current rules, last revised comprehensively in 2009, are quite clear, well written, and easily interpreted and enforced. I would suggest one change to the section on cockpit protection, which I believe would provide the guidance you'd like on cockpit protection. I base this version on the latest proposal but using realistic limitations, easily measured:
Quote:
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. Panels may extend to the forward most bulkhead, but must otherwise comply with these regulations.
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.
2. Reinforced body, at minimum, consisting of at least 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.)
3. Composite panels attached to the outside of the main frame tubes. Carbon fiber is permitted but must be used in conjunction with at least .050 inch of "anti-ballistic" type material (for example, Kevlar, Zylon, Innegra or similar materials).
For any of these methods, fasteners attaching panels to the frame shall be no closer than 6 inch centers. The material used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material.
I would welcome an updated Citation design, I'm sure it would have some innovative ideas. For me, the main attraction of FF and FC is that they are not spec classes, and I like seeing a variety of cars.
Having explored a number of different designs using both composite and aluminum panels mounted to a full tube frame, I can offer some advice. Aluminum panels, mounted on six inch centers, will give the highest torsional rigidity for a given weight. Composite panels end up roughly 20% less stiff, but can be more easily shaped to the complex contours. And, of course, they provide MUCH more penetration resistance.
In any case, as I suspect you know, the area between the main roll hoop and rear suspension is generally the "softest" part of a tube frame formula car and panels can't help you there! Despite all the misinformation, the Radon chassis has about the same axle-to-axle torsional rigidity as a Citation. The originator of the six inch rule was either very lucky or very good, the number is exactly correct to provide no performance difference between stiffening with panels or stiffening with tubes.
Nathan
I covered an RF96 Van Diemen in aluminum panels in 2001 for a conversion project. Using .063", I was able to form both sides in only four pieces - two large ones and two small ones at less than one square foot each. The Citation would be easier because the outside has a smoother cross section.
John's (Starkejt) supposition of who really submitted the proposal is the best.
Steve, you wrote: Maybe the guys who are savaging the authors of this proposal could offer their own rules for consideration. Maybe if we see your rules proposal, we may find a lot we like.
Maybe there are those of us that were happy with the rules the way they are, and see no need to change them. :)
and just for the record since it was questioned. If Nathan submitted for CoA ruling and the ruling was in his favor they dont post it so as not to give away his ideas. They are only posted if they disagree so no one else makes the same mistakes. So he could have an entire binder full with no need for them to be published. I know I have a couple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
Really? Why can't you say? This is crazy. It would be pretty easy for us to figure out with the info you've posted...
Role call anyone?
I did not write it.
The general rule (and I'm not quoting or even paraphrasing here) is that Club committee and board members are not to reveal the internal discussions of the committee or board, except that it's okay to say how you yourself voted and why. That's why I couldn't come out last week with a "hay guyz...guess what...that Radon is totally toast, dude!", even though I knew the decision on and wording of the proposal.Quote:
Originally Posted by carnut169
You may recall that when Mike Sauce was on the BoD he used to quite willingly discuss his vote on matters before the board, but always refrained from revealing how others voted (even though it eventually came out in Fastrack). Same for me. I can discuss my own actions, but I can't "out" other members or otherwise reveal sources, discussion or votes until they're officially publicized.
This is like the US government!
Tax payers pay taxes that support the government but they never reveal information as to why they did what they did or if it was really what the people wanted.
If someone has a problem with the rules or wants to clarify what ever why would you want to hide?
To paraphrase, the question at issue is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF THIS PROPOSAL?I would ask:
Why does the CRB publish an unattributed proposal for member feedback.The CRB needs to quit pulling our chain.
I think that the GCR needs to be changed:
All published Proposals must include the Proposal's letter number and author(s) name(s).Rick
once we pass the bill we get to see what's in it.....
Seriously, this is a club (isn't it?) and paying club members should be able to see everything. Nothing should be hidden.
Who are people trying to protect? What harm could full-disclosure do?
If whoever wrote the suggested changes does not want to be identified please toss it in the garbage as there must be a hidden agenda.
Does the club want to grow or not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh1exCwGiY0
42 seconds in.
Somebody here must know who wrote it. Just out em!
yes I know and no I dont care. I may wonder why, but that doesnt change what the proposal is. You either agree / disagree with all or parts of the proposal and who wrote it shouldnt matter. If your opinion is based soley on who wrote it then do you really have an opinion or are you just following a friend, or disagreeing with someone you dont like out of spite ?
IMO there is no room for either when trying to decide on the rules a class will be structured by.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFirlein
I still want to know who wrote it, promoted it, and voted it out of committee.
Rick
If someone was to make a proposal to the city or town you live saying your property does not in you opion meet the city or towns regulations and they wanted to eliminate you form living there would you want to know who was making these allegations?Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFirlein
I'm just saying I think if someone believes what they are trying to do is correct they should have no shame
Quote:
Originally Posted by nulrich
The issue giving me grief about a new car is at what point will a COA, CRB or BOD say that a design no longer meets the standards of a tube frame. That was the issue that caught Ed Zink in 1968/1969. It wasn't his car that caught him out but when the stewards ruled on the other car (Bobsy), Zink and his customers had a problem. Maybe we should just return the chassis rules to what they were originally for FC prior to FF2000.
The six inch fastener rule was from David Bruns at the meeting for the 1986 rules.
As a standard for torsional rigidity of a race ready car I can say that my cars are close to 50% of a Swift 08, as I measured it. Unless you have made a mistake, which I doubt, you should be 75% or better on that scale. When you get fully sorted, you should have a significant edge in mechanical grip based on that alone.
"If someone was to make a proposal to the city or town you live saying your property does not in you opion meet the city or towns regulations and they wanted to eliminate you form living there would you want to know who was making these allegations?"
actually I wouldnt really care who. I'd simply set about proving that it did meet the regs.
Would it actually help their cause in this case so that they could properly explain why these changes / clarifications are needed ? Yes as it would be a 1st person explanation, not someone else trying to explain what and why the author intended. but failing those explanations its just up to us to form our own opinion with what info we have.
I don't have a horse in this race, so take this as it stands. I agree that the proposal must be evaluated on, and voted on, based on it's merits. However, as I understand it, this proposal seems aimed at one car, and one car only, and is intended to retroactively outlaw cars bought and sold in good faith. I would think that if you are asking the club to do that, you should have some really good reasons, and be willing to both explain and defend them. Safety issues might make a good case. 'He thought of it and I didn't"' probably wouldn't, and surely shouldn't, sell to the rest of the club. And just in general principles, I think the club should use Webster's definition of transparency, not Obama's. I can't think of a legitimate reason for secrecy except where a builder asks for rules clarification when they have a new idea they want to try, but don't want to spend money on if it will be deemed illegal once done.
I agree with Kevin that the original author of the rules change proposal doesn't really matter. It's not hard to figure out, but I can understand why he doesn't want to be identified publicly. I wish he would learn how to spell "Continental," though. ;)
It is clear the goal of the rules change proposal is to make the Radon Rn.10 illegal. In fact, there is a small group fanatically opposed to the Radon which includes members of the F/SRAC and at least one member of the BoD. They have publicly stated on numerous occasions that they would do whatever is necessary to make the car illegal (I've seen some emails that are downright scary). In my opinion they are not defending the proposal because there is no plausible defense other than "we don't like the Radon because it might make our cars obsolete."
What is said here has little weight when the CRB makes a decision whether to recommend the rules change proposal to the BoD. If you feel strongly (on either side) you would be advised to write directly to the CRB:
http://www.crbscca.com/
I don't believe it is fair to change the rules specifically to make one car illegal just because we might have done a better job, but my opinion is worth exactly as much as any other member of the SCCA.
Nathan
Actually, unless it's classified, you can get whatever you want under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). You do have to pay for the copying costs of the documents that are dug up for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by fvracer27
but I digress-you are now returned to our regularly scheduled controversy.....
Yes but everything is always classified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
Was this proposal classified?
Nathan, care to share these notable occasions here?Quote:
Originally Posted by nulrich
Rick
I can see another class coming out of this whole mess.
"we don't like the Radon because it might make our cars obsolete."
Seems like a very reasonable or logical position for the majority of the FC participants.
Brian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Improvements and progression is what fuels the club racer. The pro teams buy the latest/ greatest and sell the 2 year old cars to guys like me.
If this was logical or reasonable we should have a handful of mid-90's Van Diemens, Reynards and nothing else. Of course all the pro-teams would be driving FMs or ?? and FC would be gone.
Just because no one has made a better mousetrap in the past decade does not mean it should not be made... and now that it has we should not re-write the rules to make it illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnut169
I actually think that most here agree with that. The problem is that these rules don't retroactively make anything illegal. I don't know of any legal car out there that will be retroactively made illegal by these rules. If there was, I would send in my letter opposed to this rules change now. I will wait on my letter to see if someone can convince me otherwise, but my letter will be sent in favor of this rules change within a few weeks if that doesn't happen.
When the rules clarification was proposed last year, all we heard was that the Radon was legal per the 2010 GCR and how bad the rules clarification would be because it would make the Radon illegal. Well, the Radon wasn't legal per the 2010 GCR but enough people bought their lie that the clarification was put off. Now we have this rules change proposed and they are again screaming that their car is legal per the 2011 GCR when it isn't. I imagine they will make enough noise to have the same result as last year, but in the meantime they will be smart enough to keep it away from club racing events where it could be ruled illegal.
As for who wrote the rule change: the rule change is under the "What do you think" section. Things under that section, in my experience, are ideas from the CRB that are put out for member input.
You guys are acting like this is already a rule. It was published as a "what do you think" item. Send your comments to the crb and bod and if the system works then this proposal either dies, or gets re-written.
John
This whole thing is such a sham. These guys got beat at there own game, is it anyone's fault other than there own, they kept making the same car year after year. And expect you to buy it and be happy with it.
And there in a position of power to stifle the competition , keep thing there way. They could not figure it out and they are going to try to stop anyone who dose. I'm sure there is some kind of infringement of trade thing going on here.
Hehe.. I dunno, seems funny as hell to me!
Got to admit, from the outside looking in, it seems like Radon just found the loopholes everyone else couldn't see. Has the car turned a wheel in a race yet? Is it really that much better than anyone else? Isn't finding loopholes what engineering is all about anyway? :ha: