February 2014 Prelims

Jim is right in that the Radon has never been protested

Someone needs to make this happen. It has been posted in many areas where members of ApexSpeed have thought that the car is illegal. Now I am very impressed with the creativity of the Radon design, but that said, if I was a competitor in the class I would have protested the car a long time ago simply to clear this up. Someone in the FC community needs to protest the Radon and get this done with. As I said I am impressed with the creative design of the car but I do think it is not legal in several areas.

The next time a Radon is at an SCCA race it needs to be protested for very specific items. Quit complaining and put up or shut up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

Wren:
I think you're a bright guy who knows the rules. What I don't think is you've actually seen a car up close enough to deem anything legal or illegal. Just protest one and get it over with. Let's just put it to bed once and for all.

Jimmy

---

I gave you a picture and a GCR reference. I guess there's no tube there? That's a shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

Jim is right in that the Radon has never been protested

Someone needs to make this happen. It has been posted in many areas where members of ApexSpeed have thought that the car is illegal. Now I am very impressed with the creativity of the Radon design, but that said, if I was a competitor in the class I would have protested the car a long time ago simply to clear this up. Someone in the FC community needs to protest the Radon and get this done with. As I said I am impressed with the creative design of the car but I do think it is not legal in several areas.

The next time a Radon is at an SCCA race it needs to be protested for very specific items. Quit complaining and put up or shut up.

---

Jay, I think it would be great if someone would do it, but someone would have to be crazy to do it. The Radon guys are clearly willing to file a lawsuit just to punish people they don't like. I wouldn't be willing to touch it. They have sufficient resources to try to get their way or to hurt anyone they don't like. I think that makes it all the more important that people send their letters.

When I did my compliance review, I was not allowed to ask questions about the Radon so I asked a very general questions that I believe apply to the Radon or created my own solidworks models so that I had to use no pictures of their car. Questions like, does non-ferrous include carbon fiber. It was certainly enough to satisfy my curiosity about the Radon. In the absence of even a single shred of evidence that their car was legal to the 2012 rules, I am comfortable speaking in absolutes regarding the legality of the car. I don't think anyone has even tried to claim that the question wouldn't apply to the Radon.

But, if anyone out there is brave enough to protest the Radon, all of the necessary information is on this forum. The GCR also now allows for someone to protest the Radon specifically. I even sent a pdf of my compliance review to anyone who asked for it.



Jim,

Any interest on your part in sending in a compliance review on your car?

Wren:
Go look at the car. We all have the review. Protest the car and you will it will be shown ASAP. What person was punished. Someone felt that they were wronged and felt like they had enough evidence to prove it. How is that punishing someone?

I have truly spent way more time on this than is justified.
I had asked to put the rule text from the GCR in the item where you felt it was illegal. I looked at the gcr where you listed it and didn't see the same thing you did.
Please put up a CURRENT photo of a problem, cut and paste the text from the gcr (not your interpretation) and explain why it is illegal. I'm sure that you can do that. You eat the GCR for breakfast.

Jimmy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

Alan, Wren knows who the two crb members are. Ask him.

---

I asked you. You appear to have chosen not to answer, so I guess I'll draw my own conclusions about why.

Quote:

---

As much as I would like to see it, I would never hold Reid to eating Wrens socks.
Wren, Reid, Kevin, Alan, etc, I won't publish the doc I have because when I bought the car I was asked not to unless I was protested. I am a man of my word. I was never asked not to show it to anyone just not post it. That's why I won't post it. I hope you can appreciate that. If you want, go look at any car. We all have the doc for what was self protested and deemed legal. I am referring to self protest of the body panels. Anyone is welcome look at the car, and the doc you can see the names of the people who wrote it and voted on it. You can ask them about their choices. I was not in the room nor was I privy to any of the decision making process. I just was given the doc from the self protests when the car was being developed in case I was protested.

---

So if it is a self protest of the body panels, then would you agree that it is in no way a blanket statement that the car is legal?

BTW, what are the names of those people? Or is that another one of those things you were asked not to reveal?

Quote:

---

Lets look at this a different way if we may. Please post a picture and the section of the GCR on a specific part of the car that is illegal and tell us why. Please be very specific and show a picture, the gcr rule it violates and how it violates it. Specificity of what makes a radon illegal seems to be like kryptonite around here.

---

Last time I checked, the Radon used carbon fibre for suspension brackets--arguing that "non-ferrous" included that material, but my understanding is that the club has ruled that as used in the GCR, "non-ferrous" refers only to metals.

Quote:

---

I will say that my car, like most formula cars is a kit. You can either assemble it yourself or pay someone else to. I choose to pay Glen Phillips to assemble mine. We were all given the parts to assemble our car to meet the GCR in 2012. My car itself is legal to those rules. I am too tall to meet the broomstick rule so a part was added to my role hoop to make me in my car meet the broomstick rule. That is the only part of the car I know for sure was not legal when I am in it. It is me in the car not the car. Fabio can sit in the first car and meet the broomstick rule. I just wanted to add that because comments have been made about the cars not meeting the broomstick rule. It is the driver in the car that has to meet it not the car itself as a shorter person could pass in ALL radons. Radon 6 and 7 have taller hoops.

---

I don't know why any of that is relevant to the issues here...

Quote:

---

I am sure I'm not telling anyone here that maybe a certain person could have spoken to some of the other people who manufacture cars with a bit more respect and may come off as arrogant. I would agree with that statement. I would say that being arrogant does not make your car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.

I'm sure a certain person could have made an attempt to come more into the fold of the class and get more involved in a positive way in the class. That fact that it didn't happen but it doesn't make the car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.

Sueing the SCCA may piss a lot of people off, but it doesn't make his car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.

I am going to quote one of the people on the crb who came and looked at my car at Sebring "he is pushing the envelope but the car is legal" per the doc he reviewed after looking at Bob W and my car at Sebring. Pushing the envelope doesn't make your car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.

---

Again: who was that person?

Quote:

---

There are a lot of opinions running around this board. Most are just that. Come look at the car and review the doc. You will see the car is what I've said. The bodywork seems to be the biggest bone of contention. It was reviewed during a self protest and deemed legal once he modified it as he was told to. Again I need to keep saying this, the car has to be legal by the 2012 rules. The rules were changed in 2013 with the very specific intent to make it illegal. Hats off to a job well done. It does not meet the 2013 rules but is grandfathered in as we all know.

Again, look at the car and doc. Make your own decision. If you're not near the Northeast of South Fla where all the Radon's reside, maybe you can come to one of the pro races and take a peek. As far as input to the new rules submissions, I would ask that you remove the radon from the equation. Do the proposed mods make the cars better and safer. Do the proposed rule mods further the progression of the class. Someone felt that in 2012 changing the rules did. 20 years of the exact same rules needed modifications for some reason. I'm not really sure why that was the case but I am only one person. Just take the people and personalities out and vote on the proposed rule changes based on the merits or lack thereof.

Vote on the Radon with your wallet. The 7 cars that are already built are grandfathered in. They have been running for a few years at many SCCA events. There were two at Sebring and Moroso at the beginning of January Majors for all to see and protest. No one did. They've been to enough SCCA events if someone truly felt they could prove that it's illegal, it would have been protested by now. I'm not sure but maybe there is more doubt than conviction of the facts and that is why it's never been protested. This is just my opinion.

Now I must sign off. I have truly used up more time on this it is worthy of.

---

Jim: That's twice now you've told us that this is using up more of your time than it is worth. But here you are.

You chose to enter this thread, and I'm asking very reasonable questions which you are now choosing not to answer except with vagaries at best. I find that odd. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

I feel really bad for whatever volunteer tech inspector gets brought into this. Poor guy will get sued.

Wren, the protest procedure is well defined and very doable. The key element is that you cannot go on a fishing expedition but must be very specific in each and every element of the protest.

I have been protested 4 times and understand the deal pretty well. Protests are, and should be, a normal part of the business of racing, especially if you build cars to the absolute limits of the rules or like to interpret things differently than what might be considered the norm.

I also think that every designer of race cars is obligated to design cars that take advantage of every part of the written rules, otherwise you are not doing your job as a designer. However if you are doing many things outside the box you MUST EXPECT that you will be protested and you must be wiling to accept the consequences of your design decisions if they are deemed illegal.

If I had an FC car I would make sure that I was an entrant and at a race where a Radon was competing and I would definitely be part of a protest if for no other reason than to make sure that there is clarity in the application and understanding of the FC rules. Of course any ruling would go to the appeal process but that is expected and totally normal.

Protests are a normal process of racing and both sides should be ready at any time to be part of the process. As an example, every race I went to a race with our reversed engined RaKaVon F500, I went with all of my documentation that defined why I thought that the car was legal under the rules as written. When we were finally protested at the Runoffs in 2005 we won the protest because we were ready for the protest.

On another note, just because I think that there are some elements of the Radon that are not legal, this does not mean that I am right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

Alan

---

Jimmy, for the record:

I am no one's "sock".

Wren:
I will submit you're the GCR guru but I can't seem to find the word diagonal in this gcr referring to the brace in the section you quoted and could not even find the second one. What am I missing.


9.1.1.D.7.a
D.7. Chassis/Frame
Formula Ford 1986 construction requirements as of January 1,
1986 as revised January 1, 2010. All new Formula Ford cars are
to be built to these specifications covered in D.6 and D.7. (Also
required for Formula Continental.)
a. The chassis shall be of steel space-frame construction. Forward facing
braces that protecting the driver’s legs and feet shall extend
from the front roll hoop to the front bulkhead (The front bulkhead
is defined as the transverse section of the frame immediately ahead
of the pedals and drivers feet.) The soles of the driver’s feet shall
not extend beyond the front edge of the wheel rims (in normal
position; (i.e., pedals not depressed) and shall remain behind the
front bulkhead. The lower main frame rails shall be a minimum
of 25 centimeters (9.84 inches) apart (inside dimension) from the
front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop. Monocoque-type structures are
prohibited.
A stress bearing floor pan constructed from a minimum of .060 inch
heat treated aluminum sheet or 18 gauge steel sheet is required. At
a minimum, it shall extend from the front bulkhead to the rear roll
hoop bulkhead. Its curvature shall not exceed one inch. The floor
pan may be constructed in multiple sections.
The front bulkhead, forward roll hoop (dash hoop) bulkhead and
main hoop bulkhead may also utilize stress-bearing panels. No
other stress-bearing panels are allowed.
Stress-Bearing Panel Definition: Any sheet material that is attached
to the frame by welding, bonding, riveting, threaded fasteners, or
any combination thereof, the centers of which are located closer
than 6 inches. The distance between fasteners is measured on the
surface of the panels. No materials other than aluminum or sheet
steel are allowed for use as stress-bearing panels. Stabilized materials
(honeycomb) are not permitted as stress-bearing panels.

9.4.5.c.2 Cannot find.

Where is the word diagonal concerning front brace. I quote "The chassis shall be of steel space-frame construction. Forward facing
braces that protecting the driver’s legs and feet shall extend
from the front roll hoop to the front bulkhead (The front bulkhead
is defined as the transverse section of the frame immediately ahead
of the pedals and drivers feet.)"

I do not see the word diagonal anywhere? If you are going to quote the GCR, please include the text for me to refer too. Please do not include your interpretation but the actual text.

My car complies with this rule. Please come and look.
Jimmy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alangbaker

I asked you. You appear to have chosen not to answer, so I guess I'll draw my own conclusions about why.

---

Alan, I don't think it's worth it. Too much risk of getting the thread locked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

I feel really bad for whatever volunteer tech inspector gets brought into this. Poor guy will get sued.

---

No kidding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

What person was punished. Someone felt that they were wronged and felt like they had enough evidence to prove it. How is that punishing someone?

---

They sued a guy and their entire claim against him was that he went to dinner with some people. I'm pretty sure that I don't have insurance to cover whatever imaginative lawsuit I could end up facing.

I would be willing to work with you to develop something that we could both agree on that you could send in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

Wren, the protest procedure is well defined and very doable. The key element is that you cannot go on a fishing expedition but must be very specific in each and every element of the protest.

---

Agreed. My point is just that I am not brave enough to do it.

Quote:

---

Protests are, and should be, a normal part of the business of racing, especially if you build cars to the absolute limits of the rules or like to interpret things differently than what might be considered the norm.

---

There is a ton of truth in this. When we were protested at the 2010 runoffs, I got pretty upset about it. I was wrong. While I believed that the car was legal as run, the people who filed the protest were well within their rights to file the protest. I was wrong to get upset.

Quote:

---

I also think that every designer of race cars is obligated to design cars that take advantage of every part of the written rules, otherwise you are not doing your job as a designer. However if you are doing many things outside the box you MUST EXPECT that you will be protested and you must be wiling to accept the consequences of your design decisions if they are deemed illegal.

---

So much truth here. The appeal to me of classes like FF, FC, and FB is the work that goes in to trying to make a compliant car to the limits of the rules and to take every advantage that the rules allow. That is the reason that I have spent so much time studying the GCR and what has made arguing about the Radon so appealing. Time spent studying the rules in the GCR is time well spent.
There is no appeal to me for a class with spec lines and competition adjustments. Innovation and hard work will be rewarded with weight or a restrictor to be brought back to the lowest common denominator. Where's the reward for hard work in that? Can we just re-homologate with a different chassis weight and restrictor size to go back to the base rules for the class?

You are also correct about what the acceptable response for losing a protest is. Going back to the 2010 runoffs, we had a straight edge and a skill saw just in case we lost any protest regarding the bodywork. Fortunately, we did not lose the protest. I would point to your response to your F500 situation as the correct and classy way to deal with such a situation.

Quote:

---

If I had an FC car I would make sure that I was an entrant and at a race where a Radon was competing and I would definitely be part of a protest if for no other reason than to make sure that there is clarity in the application and understanding of the FC rules. Of course any ruling would go to the appeal process but that is expected and totally normal.

---

Under the new process you don't have to go to a race to protest a car. Anyone can protest another car through the compliance review process. Risking a lawsuit to win an internet pissing match or satisfy my curiosity is too skewed of a risk/reward scenario. I satisfied my curiosity with my compliance review.

Quote:

---

On another note, just because I think that there are some elements of the Radon that are not legal, this does not mean that I am right.

---

:thumbsup: Same here. I've been wrong before and I'm sure I will be wrong again. I really am open minded to the whole thing, but I would like to see evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

My car complies with this rule. Please come and look.
Jimmy

---

Answered in PM. This thread is about the new rules. Maybe Doug wants to let us have another Radon compliance thread?

Let's keep trying to figure out when I can come and look.

Wren:
I agree this is about the new rules. I think we should respect the board and take this to another thread if you so desire. My car is grandfathered in and that is what I am concerned about. I will respond to things that are related to that. I again would ask that you include a picture of the problem area on the car, the QUOTED gcr not your interpretation of it, and what is wrong. As I pointed out in the prior post, you quoted a portion of the gcr stating it said diagonal bar. It does not say that. I feel like I now need to go back and review every quote you made to check for accuracy. The first one I check was misquoted. If your going to state that the GCR states something. I would again ask the you cut and paste and not put you're interpretation of what it says,

Thanks
Jimmy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

Wren:
I agree this is about the new rules. I think we should respect the board and take this to another thread if you so desire. My car is grandfathered in and that is what I am concerned about. I will respond to things that are related to that. I again would ask that you include a picture of the problem area on the car, the QUOTED gcr not your interpretation of it, and what is wrong. As I pointed out in the prior post, you quoted a portion of the gcr stating it said diagonal bar. It does not say that. I feel like I now need to go back and review every quote you made to check for accuracy. The first one I check was misquoted. If your going to state that the GCR states something. I would again ask the you cut and paste and not put you're interpretation of what it says,

Thanks
Jimmy

---

Sigh. I guess I will get sucked in, but maybe I can keep it brief and make a larger point.

Yes, it is my belief that the language that I reference in the GCR requires a diagonal brace as that is the only way to comply with the rules. I did not misquote the GCR. I did not quote the GCR at all, I referenced it. It is my opinion that a brace must be between the outside of the car and the driver's legs to protect them. I can't imagine any other way that a tube could protect the driver's legs. But, the COA could see it differently.

The important point that I would like to make from this is that anything I post, say, or email someone, unless directly supported by a compliance review is nothing but my opinion. That is not unique to me. Anything said by you, me, Nathan, an FSRAC member, a BOD member, or a CRB member cannot be anything but their personal opinion. Only the COA may make a ruling of compliant or non-compliant.

While I am unwilling to submit a compliance review, I would be willing to offer you any help I could if you wanted to submit a compliance review for your car. I believe that a compliance review on this subject would only require two sentences and one photograph/diagram.

Wren, the problem with a compliance review, which I have used several times, is that it applies only to the absolute specifics of the question you are asking about. You can phrase the question specifically enough to define exactly what you are looking to understand the legality of.

I suggest that if you think that there is a very specific item on a specific car that is not legal that you request a very carefully worded compliance review about that specific item and then later protest the car in question using the compliance review as evidence in the protest process.

I suspect that you have thought of this.

Jay:
I agree that if you had actually seen the car up close and were able to be very specific, you could do exactly just what you proposed. The issue here is Wren has NEVER seen a Radon up close by his own admission. He can't really tell you the specifics on the car, hence have anywhere near enough information to do a compliance review.

Jimmy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camadella

I think the Radon is a good car. It's carbon side panels offer much more protection than a conventional car against side impacts, and in general, I think it's a much safer car than the ones that have been manufactured unchanged for the last 20 years or so. It is admittedly a novel and new design based on modern materials and manufacturing techniques - this stuff does in fact change over time. I sort of doubt you're using a 20 year old mobile phone design, yet everyone seems to think that we should stick to old race car designs. That's fine - that's what vintage racing is for.

CC

---

Chris;

Prior to the meeting where we thrashed out the 1986 rules for FF construction, I had a conversation with one of the principals of Swift. He was advocating that we update our rules to allow for more modern construction techniques in FF. At the time David Bruns had the DB1, DB2, and DB3 on the tracks. In that meeting we thought we had written the rules well enough to restrict the frame construction to tube frames, only. DB was not advocating such a change.

One question was raised on ApexSpeed was where did the 6 inch rule came from. It was David Brun's idea. The consensus was that at 6 inch centers, any panel would not be very effective. Time seems to have proven us wrong. Or at least one designer has set out to prove the "wisdom of the time" wrong.

Chris you have asserted that tube frames construction has been "unchanged for the last 20 years or so". By 1980 I had run "installation tests" on 2 of my designs, one a tube frame FF and a aluminum monocoque FSV. Using the FF as a standard of 100, the FSV was 400. A Swift 08 FA was 1400 by comparison (my testing of the chassis). The new Citation frames being produced for 2014 season are approaching 1000. I don't think this is 20 year old technology. I would also remind you that we were doing composites in 1986.

I will also point out that most of the 1986 advanced construction designs are not race worthy today. That is not true for the tube frame cars of the day and of those that came the decades before.

The weakness of all the "modern design techniques" is their limited capacity to deal with point loading, and the difficulty of maintaining joint integrity, especially between dissimilar materials. Rivet joints fail over time and bonded joints delaminate. Composites delaminate as well. Tube frame construction results in a single unit of compatible materials. This is why the top IRL teams replace the tubs on a regular basis. By comparison, tube frames are easily repaired when necessary.

The limitations of composite construction has safety implications as well. Notice that all the cars use steel tubing for roll hoops.

Time will tell whether the Radon is a pioneering design or just an other approach to the challenges of designing a competitive Formula Continental.

Chris: time will also tell whether you are advocating for the future or not. For now the Radon is a fact. Time will tell whether it is the future.

At the end of the 2012 F2000 series I felt that I had been defeated about as bad as one could be. What is hitting the track this spring is the result of that whipping and the relentless work of all the people involved with the Citation cars. The Citation frame is almost 30% stiffer than it was at the end of 2012, existing and new cars.

Very interesting proposed rules in that preliminary minutes document.

I haven't read the whole section in the GCR, but what do you think about this...

Seems like a guy could make a composite or metal monocoque chassis and then put some light "frame rails" outside of this structure. The suspension mounting brackets could be fastened to "frame" very lightly and to the "interior panels" aka monocoque in a manner capable of handling the real racing loads. This way the car can roll without interior panels and would not be subject to spec. line weight penalties because the interior panels would not be attached to the frame. Then do or don't put super light weight exterior panels over everything.

What I don't get is the sentence about excemption for panels around the engine, oil tank, bell housing, and gearbox. "The chassis must be capable of rolling without any such frame exterior panels installed. The engine, bell housing/oil tank and gearbox are exempt from this limitation."

Can someone tell me why this is there?

Also, beware those highly stressed instrument panels! They're good for a second or two. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker

I haven't read the whole section in the GCR, but what do you think about this...

Seems like a guy could make a composite or metal monocoque chassis and then put some light "frame rails" outside of this structure. The suspension mounting brackets could be fastened to "frame" very lightly and to the "interior panels" aka monocoque in a manner capable of handling the real racing loads. This way the car can roll without interior panels and would not be subject to spec. line weight penalties because the interior panels would not be attached to the frame. Then do or don't put super light weight exterior panels over everything.

---

Hey Parker-

I think you see the main rub within those rules. It opens the door for monocoque chassis and is a HUGE departure from what the rules have been since the inception of FF/FC. Also, it unmarries the two classes that have been traditionally able to share a common chassis. Steve Lathrop's description in a previous post about the positives of tube frames in this level of racing is spot on. Allowing monocoques would have many substantial drawbacks; cost, repair, longevity.

Why can't these cars simply rehomolagate as FS and just run regionals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by butch deer

Why can't these cars simply rehomolagate as FS and just run regionals?

---

Logic has no place here Butch.

Happy Birthday by the way!!!:D

The existing Radons are now an FC spec line car and can race anywhere in the SCCA. The rub with that is that if you change anything you must then make the car legal to current FC rules.

I think I stated this correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

The existing Radons are now an FC spec line car and can race anywhere in the SCCA. The rub with that is that if you change anything you must then make the car legal to current FC rules.

I think I stated this correctly.

---

I think they also have to be legal to the 2012 GCR, as they were delivered, yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

I think they also have to be legal to the 2012 GCR, as they were delivered, yes?

---

I think that the spec line indicates that they are legal as delivered. My mind cannot wrap itself around the wording.

I think the club has made those 7 (??) legal "as delivered". Any other thoughts on this.

Cars bearing the following homologation numbers:
110056, 110057, 110058, 110059, 110060,
110061, and 110062 must comply with 2012 GCR
FC rules, must be “as delivered” from the manufacturer
and must meet current safety and weight requirements.
Cars may be raced either as delivered,
under the 2012 rules or as modified to comply with
the current rules. No combination of the 2012 and
current rules is allowed.

To me, this does not say that it is legal. My interpretation is that it can be raced under the 2012 GCR but must still be legal under that GCR. Which, depending who you ask, it is not legal as delivered under the 2012 GCR. Some say it is, some say it isn't. To which, the protest question arises.

My feeling is that if they were legal to the 2012 rules, then this whole lawsuit thing would be pointless as they can show up and race. I know that is an assumption, but that is my take until one is protested. Also, Wren's compliance review showed a few aspects were not legal, like the meaning of non-ferrous.

I think it is a bad precedent to ask folks outside of a class for their input.

If the FC rules weren't changed in 2013, this wouldn't even be an issue. Perhaps the FC rules should just be changed back to what they were in 2012.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

Cars bearing the following homologation numbers:
110056, 110057, 110058, 110059, 110060,
110061, and 110062 must comply with 2012 GCR
FC rules, must be “as delivered” from the manufacturer
and must meet current safety and weight requirements.
Cars may be raced either as delivered,
under the 2012 rules or as modified to comply with
the current rules. No combination of the 2012 and
current rules is allowed.

To me, this does not say that it is legal. It says to me that it can be raced under the 2012 GCR but must still be legal under that GCR. Which, depending who you ask, it is not legal as delivered under the 2012 GCR. Some say it is, some say it isn't. To which, the protest question arises.

My feeling is that if they were legal to the 2012 rules, then this whole lawsuit thing would be pointless as they can show up and race. I know that is an assumption, but that is my take until one is protested. Also, Wren's compliance review showed a few aspects were not legal, like the meaning of non-ferrous.

---

You are correct Reid. It does not say they are legal, it states that they can race but must be legal to the 2012 rules. This simply means that they are subject to protests just like any other car but that they must be legal wrt 2012 rules.

I do not agree that Wren's compliance review necessarily indicates that the Radons are illegal. The rules of the SCCA require that a specific Radon must be protested on a specific item or specific items. If one of the items protested was/is EXACTLY as presented in Wren's compliance review, then Wren's compliance review might be used as evidence in the protest.

Another point is that compliance reviews are only binding for the calendar year of the compliance review. For instance if a compliance review was completed on March 1st 2013, then that compliance review is only effective to December 31, 2013. So any compliance review that Wren may have made a couple of years ago is no longer valid for 2014.

I am not stating that Wren or his compliance review is not right, I am simply stating the facts as related to the compliance review process. As I said, I have been protested 4 times (and won each time) and I have also used the compliance review process several times. You must understand the process before you can use the process to your benefit.

I think, to paraphrase the rule, it says, "We don't mind if people race those cars that you made already. We just don't want you to be in the business of making any more of them."

Last time I checked, being deemed illegal by Wren doesn't really make it illegal.
I'm pretty sure that is not in the GCR but is true. At least if the Anti Radon crew is going to say something is illegal, you should pick a spokesperson who has actually seen the car up close, and not posting old pictures to make a points that are not relevant, or quoting non existent gcr rules.

FYI, check out the new F4 FIA rules on intrusion protection. I think you'll find that modern small bore Formula cars in our class are heading the away from the FC that we think is current. We are a vintage class that doesn't want to admit it is a vintage class. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Jimmy

Parker,

It may well say what you have proposed. The rules are so vague and poorly written that I don't think anyone is really sure. Please write your letters in if you think these vague rules that make a lot of currently legal cars non-compliant are a bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camadella

I think, to paraphrase the rule, it says, "We don't mind if people race those cars that you made already. We just don't want you to be in the business of making any more of them."

---

Read again. They say, "these 7 people got scammed and every really hates to see that. Maybe we should let them run anyways." At least that is what I see.

I am 100% sure that the 2013 rules make it easier for a Radon to be brought into compliance than the 2012 rules do.

You claimed that the SCCA has publicly declared the Radon legal, are we ever going to get a link or some proof?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

Last time I checked, being deemed illegal by Wren doesn't really make it illegal.

---

Of course. I have made that point constantly. The only people who can rule something legal or illegal is the COA. Even Nathan has posted on this forum that opinions from people like Dave Gomberg are nothing but one SCCA member's opinion and not a meaningful opinion that affects legality.

I have put out there what the COA has said regarding non-ferrous, double roll hoop construction, and diffuser design. I have used drawings from Nathan, things that Nathan posted on here and pictures of the car to back up my points. You only respond with the ad hominem that I have not closely inspected the car. You never try to present a counterargument. Any more discussion of the legality of the Radon is pointless until you want to bring a fact to the argument.

Those mythical rulings from the COA that you have, had the COA seen the car when they gave them? Does their ruling lose meaning because they only used diagrams and Nathan's words and didn't see the car? Of course not.

Quote:

---

At least if the Anti Radon crew is going to say something is illegal, you should pick a spokesperson who has actually seen the car up close, and not posting old pictures to make a points that are not relevant, or quoting non existent gcr rules.

---

If I am using old pictures that are irrelevant then you should post some pictures that are up to date and relevant and an explanation on why I am wrong. It would seriously damage my credibility and bring people to your side. I've never quoted non-existent GCR rules. I've given GCR rules and what I believe they mean. You offered no argument but that I haven't seen the car. You never argue that the pictures are wrong, you just try to change the subject to something that doesn't matter.

Lastly, there is no anti-Radon crew.


Whether you think that the use of carbon is good for the class or not, write your letters.

If you think a manufacturer should be able to strong-arm rules with a lawsuit or not, write your letters.

I personally don't think the GCR is going to mean a whole lot if the rules are changed to whatever the person with the most resources wants. Write your letters.

www.crbscca.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

One question was raised on ApexSpeed was where did the 6 inch rule came from. It was David Brun's idea. The consensus was that at 6 inch centers, any panel would not be very effective. Time seems to have proven us wrong. Or at least one designer has set out to prove the "wisdom of the time" wrong.

---

Hi Steve. I haven't set out to prove anyone wrong, I just used a different approach. I tried three completely different approaches to the Radon chassis design. The first was a conventional tube frame with many diagonal tubes, the second a tube frame with composite panels attached, the third a tube frame with aluminum panels attached. I designed each to the same weight target. The tube frame with aluminum panels mounted on six-inch centers was the stiffest. They were all very very close. Six inch spacing is about perfect if you want to encourage design creativity.

We could easily replace the composite panels with aluminum ones. I designed such panels and obtained quotes when the 2013 rules made the current design illegal. They would make the frame slightly stiffer than the current design. Absolutely legal under any version of the FC rules. They provide about 1/12 as much protection to the driver. Not a compromise I'm willing to make.

Quote:

---

The weakness of all the "modern design techniques" is their limited capacity to deal with point loading, and the difficulty of maintaining joint integrity, especially between dissimilar materials. Rivet joints fail over time and bonded joints delaminate.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this photo shows a Citation frame with a riveted and bonded aluminum floor? Nothing wrong with that. The Rn.10 has a 16 gauge 4130 steel floor welded directly to the frame. Just a different approach, both perfectly valid.

Quote:

---

Composites delaminate as well. Tube frame construction results in a single unit of compatible materials.

---

Yes, until you bolt, rivet, bond or otherwise attach something to it. The composite panels on the Rn.10 are bolted to the frame with fasteners. We've checked the integrity of those joints regularly on all the cars, and they have maintained installation torque perfectly. We have yet to see a single failure.

Quote:

---

This is why the top IRL teams replace the tubs on a regular basis.

---

That may have once been true. Composites have come a long way, they are now making airliners (like the Boeing 787) with design lives of 100,000 hours over 30 years. F1 monocoques often last a full season, including testing, if they aren't damaged in a crash. That represents about 20 years worth of use for the average Club racer.

Quote:

---

By comparison, tube frames are easily repaired when necessary.

---

Having done both, I can say that unbolting and replacing a composite side panel (which takes just a few minutes) is a lot easier than cutting out, straightening and welding in new tubes. The composite panels in the Rn.10 have no foam or honeycomb core, so repairing them is easy. Haven't damaged one yet, but at $800 each it would probably be easier to just replace it.

Quote:

---

The limitations of composite construction has safety implications as well. Notice that all the cars use steel tubing for roll hoops.

---

That hasn't been true for many years except for IndyCar. All other higher level classes with composite chassis use composite roll structures. They are specifically designed so the top 50 to 100 mm crushes on impact, absorbing energy, and are safer than steel roll hoops. That said, obviously the Radon roll hoop is steel. And, the tube frame of the Radon meets the "alternate" roll cage requirements, which are about three to five times more stringent than the SCCA minimum, without any composite panels installed.

Quote:

---

Time will tell whether the Radon is a pioneering design or just an other approach to the challenges of designing a competitive Formula Continental.

---

I completely agree. The Rn.10 is different, and I believe a lot safer, but FC is still about team and driver more than chassis. Which is how it should be.

By the way, for anyone interested in an outsider's view, there are a couple of good articles in RaceTech magazine that reference the Rn.10. They are written by Peter Elleray, who was working in F1 when composite structures were first introduced and who designed the Bentley that won Le Mans in 2003, the Audi R8C, and the Radical SR9. He learned about the Radon through ApexSpeed and told me he waded through all the threads before contacting me (poor guy!). The first article talks about chassis construction in general and can be found here. The second is about the Rn.10 specifically and can be found here.

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker

I haven't read the whole section in the GCR, but what do you think about this...

Seems like a guy could make a composite or metal monocoque chassis and then put some light "frame rails" outside of this structure. The suspension mounting brackets could be fastened to "frame" very lightly and to the "interior panels" aka monocoque in a manner capable of handling the real racing loads. This way the car can roll without interior panels and would not be subject to spec. line weight penalties because the interior panels would not be attached to the frame. Then do or don't put super light weight exterior panels over everything.

---

Hi Parker. That wouldn't work. There is a whole additional section of the GCR spelling out the requirements for the roll cage structure for formula cars. Once you've satisfied those requirements, added the tubes required for FF/FC, a steel or aluminum floor, brackets for mounting the suspension, you have a very substantial (and heavy) structure. Remember, one additional limitation in the proposed rules clarification is that suspension components can't be mounted to any composite panels, even through brackets, so you'd somehow have to feed the loads first into the steel tube frame, then back out to composite "monocoque." The limit on fastener spacing of six inches and fastener diameter of 1/4 inch max means you'd have this massive structure to spread the suspension loads to the tube frame and then back to the "monocoque."

And then, of course, you can't actually have a monocoque in the traditional sense, since you are only allowed panels.

You'd end up with a heavier structure for the same stiffness. And it would also be bulkier, so you'd suffer aerodynamically. Not to mention more expensive and really hard to work on.

Quote:

---

What I don't get is the sentence about excemption for panels around the engine, oil tank, bell housing, and gearbox. "The chassis must be capable of rolling without any such frame exterior panels installed. The engine, bell housing/oil tank and gearbox are exempt from this limitation."

Can someone tell me why this is there?

---

I can speculate. Many cars use stressed skin panels for the structure around the engine, for the bell housing, or to support the gearbox. Suspension components are often attached to these structures, so the car won't roll with them removed. Hence the exemption for these panels.

Nathan

For those interested in FF .............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveW

The proposed instrument panel attachment rule (no less than 6" centers) would make my panel attachment illegal (trapezoidal pattern with the fasteners on the left and right edges 4.5" apart). It makes no sense, since mine is mounted on rubber isolators, so it sure can't stiffen anything... .

---

(underlining added)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

Yep. I don't know when the rules for allowing stressed panels in the front and main roll hoop bulkheads came in to the GCR (1986?), but I know that my DB-6 takes advantage of it to mount the carbon fiber panel I use as a dash. Every other car I have ever owned mounted the dash on less than 6" centers as well.

Did the CRB forget this? Did they decide that our dashboards were too much of a threat now?

I suspect that rule is an oversight that comes down to just not knowing what is in the GCR. .

---

This rule would appear to make EVERY db-1, db-3, db-3 '89 'ers and db-6 illegal, together with other chassis [Citations -some van diemans as well] -- how nice !

- letter sent, please send yours click the link below have your scca number w/ pen to write your letter # - it is sent immediately upon submission

www.crbscca.com

Thank You

EJ

Nathan;

You are right to show the bottom of the Citation frame and all the rivets. That is what I found necessary to keep the belly pans rigidly attached to the bottom of the frame. I think your approach of welding 16 ga. 4130 sheet steel to the bottom is way less work, and most likely negligible difference in weight.

My hesitation to use welded steel is the difficulty of replacing the pan when it becomes so damaged by banging the ground and sliding over rocks and other things that it has to be replaced. But most of the cars these days have skids of some sort that that is probably not worth considering any longer.

I found that the only way to keep the belly pans attached was with 2" wide, glued and riveted joints. It is a lot of work. But the pan is an integral part of the frame structure and makes a very considerable contribution to the stiffness of the frame.

When I used .060 thick aluminum belly pans, after they had been run for a season, many times the belly pan could not be reinstalled after it had been removed because the holes would no longer line up sufficiently to be reattached with the same sized rivets. With thicker aluminum the belly pans did go back on if they were not otherwise damaged.

Joints are always a design issue. I think the fewer you have the fewer potential problems you might have.

When I was with PacWest I engineered on a Lola T97 that had over 30,000 miles on the tub at the beginning of the season. We banged the walls more than once that year. And we had some very good results as well. That tub had a lot of professional repairs over the years it was run. So, yes, composites will stand up to abuse. But that tub cost more than a FF or FC of that time.

The rules and their interpretations change over time. I have pushed a few rules issues in my time designing cars as have you. I have won a few and lost on a few as well. And the rule book has changes as a result of some of some things I tried. I remember one time when I protested a car for a construction rules violation and he protested me. We were both disqualified and rightly so. The following year the rules did change.

Welcome to SCCA.

Morning Steve. I've had that photo on my hard drive for some time. I think it might be Brandon's frame. Something very pleasing about a staggered line of solid rivets like that, at least to an engineering geek like me.

The Radon has a fiberglass undertray that covers and protects the steel floor. Otherwise I would have used a replaceable aluminum floor like the Citation, which is a better solution if the floor is exposed.

I changed the design of the Rn.10 three times in response to SCCA rules changes, some more significant than others. I just wasn't comfortable changing it again when the 2013 rules came along and required a significant reduction in safety to comply. Even if we'd had the resources to completely redesign and retool the car to meet the new rules, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if someone had been seriously injured or killed because I was willing to compromise on driver protection. As a designer, and someone who has been very proactive on safety with the Citation, I'm sure you understand what it feels like to know every decision you make might affect the safety of your customers.

Nathan

I can appreciate your concern about safety.

I did a lot of the safety testing of my cars myself.

On one occasion, I rolled the car on the track once and followed that with another roll over the guard rail. That was over the guard rail upside down. The guard rail hit the roll bar and the side of the frame. Just as the car started over the first time, I thought that this was the one version of that car with the lowest roll bar. My helmet had skid marks on the top from the track. Cars after that all had taller roll bars. LaRue had a similar crash in 2012, at the same corner, and it was the tall roll bar that saved the day.

Bragging a little, I had the first car homoligated for SCCA racing that met the 1984 roll cage rules. It was a FSV in 1977. The Z16 followed a year later.

My frame structure is such that the car has reasonable side protection because the frame rails in the side of the cockpit form a series of triangles that result in a curved surface around the driver. Some of those tubes are roll bar brace material.

I think the Citation has about the best side protection possible with a pure tube frame car. It should be very effective against blunt force impacts. The gaps between tubes do allow nose cones and sharp suspension components to penetrate. Although reinforced bodywork helps a little, I think we can do better. Unfortunately, the current FF/FC rules (as well as the FB rules) don't really allow any composite anti-intrusion panels (since, by their nature, they will "serve a structural purpose" and stiffen the frame somewhat).

As I mentioned in another thread, the FIA Formula 4 rules require a 12 mm thick composite panel bolted solidly to the frame as shown in the first drawing. That certainly isn't legal under the current FF/FC rules, nor would it be legal under the proposed clarifications (the fasteners are too big). The design of the panels and the layup schedule is basically identical to the Radon panels.

The second drawing shows the design of the Radon panel mounting system. The welded in bungs are engineered so that they do not compromise the strength of the tubes. I have versions for both 1-3/8" and 1" diameter tubing. The fastener is 1/4" diameter, made from chromoly steel, and would meet the requirements of the proposed rules clarification. We use a Nord-Lock washer and a jetnut. So far, we've seen no failure or fretting of these joints.

These parts are made in NH by an ApexSpeed and SCCA member, and I'm supplying them (at cost) to folks in some other classes where they are legal. If the clarification goes through, they would be legal in FF/FC, too, and I'd be glad to supply anyone in those classes who is interested. If you'd rather have them made yourself, I'll give you the drawings or solid models upon request. I'm also willing to share the knowledge we've gained on building these panels, which you could make in your garage using WEST system.

Given some of the Citation drivers are fairly slender (yes, Dave and Tim, I'm talking about you), I think you could afford to add a few pounds of composite panel. Of course, it WOULD make your chassis even stiffer! :)

One area we are overlooking that has the potential to improve side intrusion protection is the location and construction of the side pods. Anti intrusion panels in the side pods would be even more effective than the same thing mounted to the frame.

The Citation side pods span the distance between the front and rear roll hoops. The radiators are mostly behind the driver but the inner duct is a box structure attached to the body side panels. This part is structural in that is supports the radiator. Covering that is the side pod itself. The latest version of which is reinforced composite structure. Bottoms of the side pods are substantial structures as well. The VD's are constructed the same way and the side pods cover the same area of the car as do the Citation pods.

The biggest penetration hazards to the drivers come from the suspension of the car itself. We have anti intrusion bars on all the front suspension arms. But even that is no substitute for good design of the mounting and protection in the area most likely to be affected by a broken component. Can I and all the other designers do better? Certainly.

The point here is that there are many approaches to safety and the record of the cars outr there is not bad at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

I think the Citation has about the best side protection possible with a pure tube frame car. It should be very effective against blunt force impacts. The gaps between tubes do allow nose cones and sharp suspension components to penetrate. Although reinforced bodywork helps a little, I think we can do better. Unfortunately, the current FF/FC rules (as well as the FB rules) don't really allow any composite anti-intrusion panels (since, by their nature, they will "serve a structural purpose" and stiffen the frame somewhat).

---

I'm a little confused by that last statement.

I have a copy of the GCR from September of 2012 and it explicitly allows for anti-intrustion panels of the type the FIA is now promulgating for F4:

Composite anti-intrusion panels shall be attached with no more than eight fasteners per side. Fasteners shall be AN or superior grade of not more than 0.25 inch diameter. Two flat or coun- tersunk Mil Spec or SAE washers of no more than 1 inch diam- eter may be employed with each fastener. Ten fasteners per side are permitted if the panels extend to the front bulkhead.

Alright: as of that revision, it allowed fewer fasteners, but the rules of that date certainly did allow anti-intrustion panels that would stiffen the frame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

Hi Parker. That wouldn't work. There is a whole additional section of the GCR spelling out the requirements for the roll cage structure for formula cars. Once you've satisfied those requirements, added the tubes required for FF/FC, a steel or aluminum floor, brackets for mounting the suspension, you have a very substantial (and heavy) structure. Remember, one additional limitation in the proposed rules clarification is that suspension components can't be mounted to any composite panels, even through brackets, so you'd somehow have to feed the loads first into the steel tube frame, then back out to composite "monocoque." The limit on fastener spacing of six inches and fastener diameter of 1/4 inch max means you'd have this massive structure to spread the suspension loads to the tube frame and then back to the "monocoque."

And then, of course, you can't actually have a monocoque in the traditional sense, since you are only allowed panels.

You'd end up with a heavier structure for the same stiffness. And it would also be bulkier, so you'd suffer aerodynamically. Not to mention more expensive and really hard to work on.



I can speculate. Many cars use stressed skin panels for the structure around the engine, for the bell housing, or to support the gearbox. Suspension components are often attached to these structures, so the car won't roll with them removed. Hence the exemption for these panels.

Nathan

---

The way I read the proposed rules, there is not an exclusion from attaching suspension components to interior panels, and there is no wording to specify how these interior panels are attached to one another. Also, I could attach suspension brackets to composite panels and require only one small fastener or maybe none. One could do this with a mortise and tenon, dovetail, or christmas tree type attachment. The suspension bracket could be lightly attached to the vestigial frame tubes so that is would "roll" without the interior panels. Even if I had to attach the suspension brackets to the frame, I could make the frame captive by the interior panel and as such have great load distribution characteristics and no fasteners.


Still don't get the stressed panel exclusion in the engine bay. What cars have stressed panels around the engine, oil tank, bell housing, or gearbox in the SCCA? None that I've seen except maybe the "bell housing" in the Pipers. To call this machined plate construction a "panel" is a real stretch!


I don't have any stake in this discussion except as an SCCA member, formula car driver, and scrutineer, but it is fun to see where these rules can be taken if in a vacuum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker

The way I read the proposed rules, there is not an exclusion from attaching suspension components to interior panels, and there is no wording to specify how these interior panels are attached to one another.

---

Good point. Earlier, in 9.1.1.B.3.f. it says "Suspension components shall not be mounted directly to any frame exterior panel (including, but not limited to body and anti-intrusion panels)." I'm assuming they wanted the same restriction to apply to composite panels contained completely within the frame, but they should add it to cockpit interior panel section.

Quote:

---

Also, I could attach suspension brackets to composite panels and require only one small fastener or maybe none. One could do this with a mortise and tenon, dovetail, or christmas tree type attachment. The suspension bracket could be lightly attached to the vestigial frame tubes so that is would "roll" without the interior panels. Even if I had to attach the suspension brackets to the frame, I could make the frame captive by the interior panel and as such have great load distribution characteristics and no fasteners.

---

You could use a number of very exotic (and expensive and hard to maintain) fastening methods, but the suspension would still be "mounted" to them. It doesn't say anything about the number or type of fasteners, you can't attach them AT ALL. Assuming the prohibition against mounting suspension to panels also applies to cockpit interior panels (which it should, in my opinion).

Also, you still need a full tube frame to meet the GCR roll cage requirements and the FF/FC specific requirements. That frame weighs quite a lot, so you're essentially proposing building two chassis, one within the other. It would not only be heavier than a tube frame, it would be bigger.

Interesting exercise, though! :)

Quote:

---

Still don't get the stressed panel exclusion in the engine bay. What cars have stressed panels around the engine, oil tank, bell housing, or gearbox in the SCCA? None that I've seen except maybe the "bell housing" in the Pipers. To call this machined plate construction a "panel" is a real stretch!

---

The Van Diemen has a stressed panel (aluminum floor riveted and bonded to square tubes) under the engine bay. I've seen Citation bell housings that are bolted together and have plates that extend alongside the gearbox to reinforce it. The Radon has a bell housing that includes welded together panels. And there's the Piper bell housing. Why is it a stretch to call a 1/4" thick machined plate a "panel?" It meets every definition I've seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alangbaker

I'm a little confused by that last statement.

I have a copy of the GCR from September of 2012 and it explicitly allows for anti-intrustion panels of the type the FIA is now promulgating for F4:

Composite anti-intrusion panels shall be attached with no more than eight fasteners per side. Fasteners shall be AN or superior grade of not more than 0.25 inch diameter. Two flat or coun- tersunk Mil Spec or SAE washers of no more than 1 inch diam- eter may be employed with each fastener. Ten fasteners per side are permitted if the panels extend to the front bulkhead.

Alright: as of that revision, it allowed fewer fasteners, but the rules of that date certainly did allow anti-intrustion panels that would stiffen the frame.

---

When I said "current rules" I meant the 2013 (now 2014) rules which have the following specific prohibition:

Quote:

---

GCR 9.1.1.B.f. No other exterior panels (excepting body work) shall be permitted in the area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the forward most bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead.

Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and antiintrusion 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.

No panels or other components other than the required and optional load bearing panels may be attached to the chassis for structural purposes, except that the engine, bell housing/oil tank and gearbox are permitted to be stressed and/or load bearing.

---

I don't know how you measure "any structural purpose" or "performing to the same level or degree" but I suspect every individual would have their own standard. Not what you want in rules. And the FIA mandated Formula 4 panels would clearly violate those rules.

The proposed clarification replaces that with:

Quote:

---

9.1.1.B.f. No other exterior panels (excepting body work) shall be permitted in the area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the forward most bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. Suspension components shall not be mounted directly to any frame exterior panel (including, but not limited to body and anti-intrusion panels). The chassis must be capable of rolling without any such frame-exterior panels installed. The engine, bell housing/oil tank and gearbox are exempt from this limitation.

---

Still not perfect, but certainly a LOT less ambiguous. Maybe it should say "rolling at the same ride height +/- 1 inch or something" instead.

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

When I said "current rules" I meant the 2013 (now 2014) rules which have the following specific prohibition:

GCR 9.1.1.B.f. No other exterior panels (excepting body work) shall be permitted in the area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the forward most bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead.

Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and antiintrusion 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.

I don't know how you measure "any structural purpose" or "performing to the same level or degree" but I suspect every individual would have their own standard. Not what you want in rules. And the FIA mandated Formula 4 panels would clearly violate those rules.

---

1. The "no other exterior panels" part is there because the anti-intrusion panels are explicitly allowed. Hence 9.1.1.B.f does NOT rule out anti-intrusion panels.

2. The FIA mandate panels are an update on the rules for the already extent anti-intrusion panel rules. Characterizing them as something that "clearly violates" the FF/FC rules is a little disingenuous, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

Good point. Earlier, in 9.1.1.B.3.f. it says "Suspension components shall not be mounted directly to any frame exterior panel (including, but not limited to body and anti-intrusion panels)." I'm assuming they wanted the same restriction to apply to composite panels contained completely within the frame, but they should add it to cockpit interior panel section.



You could use a number of very exotic (and expensive and hard to maintain) fastening methods, but the suspension would still be "mounted" to them. It doesn't say anything about the number or type of fasteners, you can't attach them AT ALL. Assuming the prohibition against mounting suspension to panels also applies to cockpit interior panels (which it should, in my opinion).

Also, you still need a full tube frame to meet the GCR roll cage requirements and the FF/FC specific requirements. That frame weighs quite a lot, so you're essentially proposing building two chassis, one within the other. It would not only be heavier than a tube frame, it would be bigger.

Interesting exercise, though! :)



The Van Diemen has a stressed panel (aluminum floor riveted and bonded to square tubes) under the engine bay. I've seen Citation bell housings that are bolted together and have plates that extend alongside the gearbox to reinforce it. The Radon has a bell housing that includes welded together panels. And there's the Piper bell housing. Why is it a stretch to call a 1/4" thick machined plate a "panel?" It meets every definition I've seen.

---

I'm not talking about anyone's opinion of what should be included in the rules, just what's included in those preliminary minutes for which the link is provided in the first post of this thread.

I'm not proposing two chassis, but that these rules allow multi-part chassis which could consist of a section from the main roll hoop to the front roll hoop that meet the requirement of the appropriate section of the GCR, and then a chassis section from the front roll hoop to the front bulkhead which could be made quite differently and which could negate essentially all the structural characteristics of steel tubes.

The VanDiemen can roll perfectly well without the engine bay floor pan. I guess it's there for lateral stiffness.

Here's a try at panel definition since it doesn't seem to be it the glossary of the GCR: Panels are made from sheet which for aluminum stop at 3ga. of 0.229" thick. For steel it's the same gauge but 0.239" Everything thicker than this is plate material.

I don't think there are cars out there that rely on materials as thin as sheet (or as you say, 1/4" thick plate) to provide the primary or only load path between the engine and transmission. My calipers may have been a little off the day I looked over a nice new Piper, but I'm pretty sure the plates that connect the engine to the tranny were more like 0.5 to 0.625 inches thick. (I really like the Piper bell housing/oil tank. Great way to avoid expensive tooling for low quantity production.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alangbaker

2. The FIA mandate panels are an update on the rules for the already extent anti-intrusion panel rules. Characterizing them as something that "clearly violates" the FF/FC rules is a little disingenuous, don't you think?

---

They violate the current rules in at least five ways:

1. The fasteners are too big (M8 when the rules allow a maximum of 1/4")
2. The washers are too big (30 mm while the rules allow a maximum of 1")
3. There are too many fasteners (12 minimum, 16 for F4 while the rules allow a maximum of 10)
4. The panels stiffen and strengthen the frame (a prohibited additional structural purpose)
5. The car will perform better with the panels installed (not to the same level or degree)

I would agree the current rules are contradictory, since FIA-type composite panels are seemingly allowed in one section then disallowed in another. That's one of the ambiguities and contradictions addressed in the CRB's proposed rules clarification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

They violate the current rules in at least five ways:

1. The fasteners are too big (M8 when the rules allow a maximum of 1/4")
2. The washers are too big (30 mm while the rules allow a maximum of 1")
3. There are too many fasteners (12 minimum, 16 for F4 while the rules allow a maximum of 10)

---

Yes, all things that could be updated to the SCCA rules (fewer fasteners, smaller washers, smaller bolts). Or some combination of the that and having the CRB update the rules.

Quote:

---

4. The panels stiffen and strengthen the frame (a prohibited additional structural purpose)
5.The car will perform better with the panels installed (not to the same level or degree)

---

I am not sure if you really believe this or not, but for some reason I suspect that you do. I think that this is a perfect example of how everyone ended up in this situation. The fact that you could read the GCR and come to this conclusion is a pretty solid explanation of how you managed to accidentally build an illegal car.

I am 100% sure that a protest of the a panel mounted in the manner described in the GCR would result in a compliant ruling. As long as you can specifically point to a section of the GCR that allows something, you will be fine.

Yes, the wording needs work. But your proposed rules from the 2014 prelims is even worse. "Rolling" WTF?

Quote:

---

That's one of the ambiguities and contradictions addressed in the CRB's proposed rules clarification.

---

This proposed rule is not a clarification. Where would you even get that idea? It is the biggest rules change since 1986. Even though the CRB let their name get put on it, I doubt that anyone believes that it came from them. After calling around, no one on the CRB will talk about it or take the blame for the rules. Given how poorly written they are and how they show a poor understanding of the GCR, my guess is that they came from you.

Everyone, posting here is a great way to try to understand the rules or interact with the writers of the rules. But, posts on here don't matter to the SCCA. If you don't want a new rule set that makes a lot of current cars illegal, then you need to go to the CRB website and write your letter. Your letter does not have to be more than a sentence or two.

www.crbscca.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

They violate the current rules in at least five ways:

1. The fasteners are too big (M8 when the rules allow a maximum of 1/4")
2. The washers are too big (30 mm while the rules allow a maximum of 1")
3. There are too many fasteners (12 minimum, 16 for F4 while the rules allow a maximum of 10)
4. The panels stiffen and strengthen the frame (a prohibited additional structural purpose)
5. The car will perform better with the panels installed (not to the same level or degree)

---

Yup. You have correctly identified that the specific details of the FIA's new anti-intrusion panel rules don't match up with the GCR, but that's quite different that implying that the GCR outlaws the very concept.

Quote:

---

I would agree the current rules are contradictory, since FIA-type composite panels are seemingly allowed in one section then disallowed in another. That's one of the ambiguities and contradictions addressed in the CRB's proposed rules clarification.

---

And as far as stiffening and strengthening go, the GCR defines specific methods of attaching anti-intrusion panels legally. Those methods of attachment are therefore defined de jure as not being a method which performs an structural function. I agree the rules are written terribly well, but they aren't actually contradictory.

It would really, really be nice if someone from the Radon side could factually address the opposition without resorting to name calling becoming of a 6 year old.

I guess when you cannot back up your side, resort to name calling and intentionally get the thread locked. Nice tactic.

Really, we need to see legitimate, intelligent points from the other side otherwise you will only have yourselves to blame when the rules don't get passed. If you want to have your side represented, I suggest you start doing so in a better way. This certainly does not make you look good.

In an attempt to get this thread back on the topic of the rules and the February 2014 minutes...

It seems that every side of this argument can agree on one thing: the rules for how the chassis must "perform" need some work.

Right now the rules say this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2014 GCR

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.

---

How about something more like this:

"Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and
antiintrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or
installed in such a manner that they perform any function of the frame, to include: mounting running gear or bodywork or serve as the attachment point for any suspension pieces. In the absence of such panels the chassis
measurements(including camber, caster, track width, toe, wheelbase and ride height) must remain the same."

Please tear that to shreds. You won't hurt my feelings. Right off the bat, I can see that it would be weird to essentially say that "bodywork can't mount bodywork" That might be a huge problem for people who mount their sidepods to their chassis side panels.

I'm in meetings all freakin' day and come back to my office to find another Radon flame war in progress. Again. I have no time to babysit right now, so I will have to sort it out later this evening. Until then, Both Matt and Wren are taking some time off today.

This has got to stop. I understand that there are parties involved with long-built animosity for whatever reason, but it absolutely will not continue here. This is the last Radon subject warning. If the conversation cannot stay civil and on-topic, the result will be instantaneous removal from ApexSpeed from ANYONE violating the forum rules. No more flame wars.




dc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

It would really, really be nice if someone from the Radon side could factually address the opposition without resorting to name calling becoming of a 6 year old.

I guess when you cannot back up your side, resort to name calling and intentionally get the thread locked. Nice tactic.

Really, we need to see legitimate, intelligent points from the other side otherwise you will only have yourselves to blame when the rules don't get passed. If you want to have your side represented, I suggest you start doing so in a better way. This certainly does not make you look good.

---

Seconded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

In an attempt to get this thread back on the topic of the rules and the February 2014 minutes...

It seems that every side of this argument can agree on one thing: the rules for how the chassis must "perform" need some work.

Right now the rules say this:



How about something more like this:

"Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and
antiintrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or
installed in such a manner that they perform any function of the frame, to include: mounting running gear or bodywork or serve as the attachment point for any suspension pieces. In the absence of such panels the chassis
measurements(including camber, caster, track width, toe, wheelbase and ride height) must remain the same."

Please tear that to shreds. You won't hurt my feelings. Right off the bat, I can see that it would be weird to essentially say that "bodywork can't mount bodywork" That might be a huge problem for people who mount their sidepods to their chassis side panels.

---

I think that defining performance in this context is much like determining intent. Not sure it can be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Carter

I'm in meetings all freakin' day and come back to my office to find another Radon flame war in progress. Again. I have no time to babysit right now, so I will have to sort it out later this evening. Until then, Both Matt and Wren are taking some time off today.

This has got to stop. I understand that there are parties involved with long-built animosity for whatever reason, but it absolutely will not continue here. This is the last Radon subject warning. If the conversation cannot stay civil and on-topic, the result will be instantaneous removal from ApexSpeed from ANYONE violating the forum rules. No more flame wars.

dc

---

I am posting now, because I thought until Matt M. chimed in, there were some pretty on-topic and useful replies, from Wren, Nulrich, Steve L., and several others, being made. I think it would be a shame to shut this down when it appears to me to be somewhat productive.