Radon photos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

Are you sure? Here is section B.1 of the FC rules, which takes precedence over anything in the FF rules:

If your definition is correct, and section B.1 applies to "anything required to support running gear or bodywork" then any bolted-together bell housing (like those on Pipers and the new Citations) is illegal, since they have stress-bearing panels (fasteners closer than six inches) and are not part of the bulkhead or undertray.

---

I still think those bellhousings come in under the bracket rule since they mount the transmission.

The history is that the whole frame rule only applies to the roll hoop forward, I have no idea when that started.

Quote:

---

Again, the GCR is very clear. Here is the definition of monocoque:
Since the Rn.10 clearly has a frame (by any definition) and the panels are not permanent (they are easily removed) then it is not a monocoque.

---

The panels on your car are no more removeable than the panels on a DB4, the only difference is that I take the panels off of your car with a driver and off of the DB4 with a drill. The type of fastener doesn't make a difference. If I take the panels off of your car the wheels fall off and the car is sitting on the frame. Sounds permanent to me since they are essential to have it function as a car.

Quote:

---

I was going to suggest the Wren and Nathan decide this MMA-style in the Octagon, but they would probably just argue about whether the pads on the sides of the cage made it a monocoque or not.

---

I am always suggesting this conflict resolution method at work. I can't get anyone else to agree though. Something about not wanting to wrestle the guy with the cauliflower ear (which is way down right now).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

I am always suggesting this conflict resolution method at work. I can't get anyone else to agree though. Something about not wanting to wrestle the guy with the cauliflower ear (which is way down right now).

---

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

Are you kidding? Didn't he just use competitive wrestling as an example with which he's familiar? I'd probably get pinned in less time than it takes to lap Lime Rock (in a Radon)!

How about basketball? Or tennis? ;)

Nathan

---

Wren will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a wrestling match is 6 minutes long. How does that compare to a Radon lap time @ Lime Rock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

I still think those bellhousings come in under the bracket rule since they mount the transmission.

---

I agree. And my cockpit protection panels mount many things, and are definitely brackets. Neither one is covered by B.1. If one is illegal, so is the other, you can't have it both ways.

Quote:

---

The history is that the whole frame rule only applies to the roll hoop forward, I have no idea when that started.

---

But you said I couldn't have a carbon fiber bell housing either! ;) Since it isn't in the GCR, the "roll hoop forward" concept is irrelevant. And your definition of "frame" covers many components aft of the main roll hoop.

Quote:

---

The panels on your car are no more removeable than the panels on a DB4, the only difference is that I take the panels off of your car with a driver and off of the DB4 with a drill. The type of fastener doesn't make a difference. If I take the panels off of your car the wheels fall off and the car is sitting on the frame. Sounds permanent to me since they are essential to have it function as a car.

---

Really? What makes you think that? If I take the cockpit protection panels off, the car will roll just fine.

If you take a bell housing off any FC car, it won't function as a car. Is it illegal because the casting is a "monocoque?"

Quote:

---

I am always suggesting this conflict resolution method at work. I can't get anyone else to agree though. Something about not wanting to wrestle the guy with the cauliflower ear (which is way down right now).

---

Yeah, that's what I figured...plus I'm guessing you have access to way more firepower than I do ;).

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starkejt

Wren will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a wrestling match is 6 minutes long. How does that compare to a Radon lap time @ Lime Rock?

---

If I add up all the claims for the various "unfair" advantages people are complaining about, I figure an Rn.10 should lap Lime Rock in about 40 seconds. I don't think I would last that long, and definitely not six minutes! ;)

Nathan

How about we toss a complete Radon car into the lake? If it sinks, it is legal, but if it floats, it is illegal, and thus we burn it at the stake?

Nathan, just trying to understand, do the front wishbones bolt (attach) to the steel tube frame (or to clevises attached to the steel tube frame) or the side protection panels? Also I don't understand how the raised front of the frame is legal under the 1" rule? Just trying to clarify all this in my (small) brain. Thanks. Rob

Hi Rob:

The front wishbones do not attach to the carbon panels. The front pivots mount to the front bulkhead and the rear lower pivot mounts under the nose to the floor. The upper rear pivot mounts to a clevis that is bolted to the front roll hoop (steel tube frame). The cockpit protection panels are sandwiched between this clevis and the front roll hoop, but we are careful to use standoffs on one of the attachment bolts in order to not violate the six inch rule (although most every FC car out there violates it in this way).

We could cut out the cockpit protection panel around this attachment point, but that would compromise the integrity of our safety cell.

The floor is legal under the one inch rule in the 2010 GCR. I'd rather not get into specifics, since there seem to be a lot of people that haven't figured out how we did it! However, every person who has seen the design agrees it meets the 2010 rules, including members of the CRB. It would not meet the proposed new rules, although I guess we could argue about "approximately parallel to the ground" and "chassis rake" since they are such imprecise terms.

Nathan

Hi,

With the exception of Dave W, it appears that we are getting off the subject. The question is not whether the car is legal under the current rules - there is a procedure in place to argue about that with the SCCA. There are stewards, courts of appeal, and the protest process already in place, and we are willing to accept their decisions on this subject. The question is whether the rules need to be CHANGED in order to ENSURE that it is illegal.

We are more than prepared to defend the car's design under the CURRENT SCCA rules. Our point is that people (some of whom are involved in the manufacture of current chassis) are trying to CHANGE the rules in order to rule our car out with certainty.

Clearly, what the people who want to change the rules want here is either a vintage or a spec class. Why on earth would anyone invest the amount of money it takes to design and build a new car knowing that on a moment's notice, the SCCA can rule it out and make it illegal, particularly when he knows that the people who make the rules also work for the competition? In most business situations that I know about, this is referred to as a "conflict of interest", and that's only if you're sugar coating it.

If we want to have a separate thread for discussing whether the car is legal under the CURRENT rules, that's fine, too - but they are two separate arguments.

Cheers,

Chris C.

Matt M.

It's always so sad when a top level driver is reduced to a color commentator.:D
But keep stirring it up.:p

IMO, the items to be clarified that we are all talking about are already in place in the rules as they are. Richard Pare's submittal to the SCCA CRB just makes them much less vague and more specifically defined. There, IMO, are no new rules here, just logical and understandable clarifications of the ones already in place.

I have thoroughly read both the 2010 GCR version, and the proposed version, and, IMO, the proposed new version states the same chassis rules as the 2010 GCR, just with the intended meanings and structures much more clearly defined.

Everyone has their own opinions on what the rules SHOULD mean, and that, IMO, is why this clarification is necessary. In general, and specifically, in the past, vague rules have meant that the interpretation has changed with the wind, and well-meaning people have been caught out. That is why rules and specifications need to be stated very clearly, and NOT left to the interpretation of the month.

Of course, no amount of clarification can remove ALL differences in interpretation, but it can minimize them. And, that is the intent.

For a short version of how this proposed clarification came about, check out this post by Dave Gomberg: http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...9&postcount=60

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveW

There, IMO, are no new rules here, just logical and understandable clarifications of the ones already in place.

---

That's only true if the clarifications don't make illegal today what was legal yesterday. If that happens those "clarifications" are "rule changes" incognito.

Clarifications should be used when previous rules contained subjective terms.

Respectfully, Dave, do you really think it's fair to call such a massive rules change a "clarification?" Just look at the Fastrack and visually compare the amount of red ink and strikeouts with the unaffected language in the applicable sections. I'm told by those who have been around a while that it is, by far, the most significant rules change since 1986.

It may seem like a "clarification of intent" to certain people who have a particular vision of how an FC car should look, but it is definitely a major rules change to me.

I also want to point out that I have available and open to any communication on potential rules changes since I became involved in SCCA again in early 2009. Even though I asked specifically, no one made any attempt to contact me or any representative of Radon Sport about rules changes. To be ambushed like this and have someone try to ram in a rules change at the last possible moment specifically to make our car illegal doesn't seem right to me.

FWIW.

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

...It may seem like a "clarification of intent" to certain people who have a particular vision of how an FC car should look, but it is definitely a major rules change to me....

FWIW.

Nathan

---

Nathan, that is exactly why the clarifications are needed. Not because you do or don't have a better mousetrap, but because the rules were vague enough for you, with a plausible innovative interpretation, to design the Radon the way you did in good faith. The chassis rules, IMO, were never intended to allow your design, but intent alone is not enough when intelligent minds are at work.

Then where does that leave us? We designed a car in good faith to the rules in place, with full knowledge and communication with a member of the CRB, and are now faced with seeing thousands of man hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment rendered worthless.

And what about the ten people who have purchased Radon chassis, also in good faith, and will potentially not be able to race them in 2011? What do I tell them? Your cars are now worthless, and you have no recourse?

I'm assuming Ralph Firman and his customers are in a similar situation.

At best, no one will ever build a new car for FF/FC again and the class will dwindle away.

Nathan

The problem with this so-called "rules clarification" and the process that brought it about is the total lack of transparency in how it was done.

Instead of getting input from the members upfront it was all done very backdoor like, hidden from view, unseen, and then just suddenly thrust upon us like some kind of bushwhacking ambush....leaving us all on the defensive and force to act in a knee-jerk responsive manner.

Leaves one with the feeling they just got groped by the clown that lives in the Jack-in-the-Box.

Then you get threads like this. Pages and pages of ranting and ranting and more ranting.....everyone circling their own wagons childishly thinking they are the only ones with the right answers to everything.

Where have I seen all this before?....now I remember! The last time I was involved in FC!

Some things I guess....never change...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

Hi Mark:

If the new rules proposal is approved, I do not know what the F2000 pro series will do. I suggest you ask them, although I suspect they won't make a decision until it actually happens.

SCCA is not the only place to race F2000 cars.

Nathan

---

and as such, all your time and money won't be really be for naught now will it?

mark d

[FONT=Monaco]Thank you for noticing Jim - I was starting to think people just skip over my posts.... Well except that one guy that called me a creep... Doug should ban that guy..... Anyway - This is a good thread to keep my aloof persona going.... Keeps me in the hearts and minds of many..... [/FONT]

[FONT=Monaco]Besides - I can only do color for so long... pretty soon I'll have to kick somebody's ass to show everyone I still have it.[/FONT]

For now I'll write in and tell the board my thoughts FWIW. I'd like to see this car hit the track - in FC. Somebody has to be the yang to all this ying

BTW - Copeland, good to see you back... I think...

Howdy Matt,

I was going to mention your post. It was the only one that cracked me up. Good to see ya haven't lost your mojo...

Not sure if I'm glad to back yet either. Guess it'll be interesting just the same though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland

The problem with this so-called "rules clarification" and the process that brought it about is the total lack of transparency in how it was done.

Instead of getting input from the members upfront it was all done very backdoor like, hidden from view, unseen, and then just suddenly thrust upon us like some kind of bushwhacking ambush....leaving us all on the defensive and force to act in a knee-jerk responsive manner.

Leaves one with the feeling they just got groped by the clown that lives in the Jack-in-the-Box.

Then you get threads like this. Pages and pages of ranting and ranting and more ranting.....everyone circling their own wagons childishly thinking they are the only ones with the right answers to everything.

Where have I seen all this before?....now I remember! The last time I was involved in FC!

Some things I guess....never change...

---

Fastrack states, "SUGGESTED RULES FOR NEXT YEAR
The following subjects will be referred to the Board of Directors for approval. Address all comments, both for and against, to the Club Racing Board. It is the BoD’s policy to withhold voting on a rules change until there has been input from the membership on the presented rules. Member input is suggested and encouraged. Please send your comments via the form at http://www.crbscca.com/"

It appears that the front door is open and the lights are on. Whether you are for or against the SUGGESTED RULES FOR NEXT YEAR, now is the time to offer your input to the CRB.

Matt,

As always, thank you for your entertaining comments. ;)

Hello Mr Nulrich & Co.
Welcome to the SCCA !

So you decided to put a couple hundred thou at risk of a regulatory body outside your control?
You entered a competitive sport and discovered people are out to get you?

I'm guessing you also voted for Hope & Change :)

Good luck with that.

[quote=Thomas Copeland;266597]
Instead of getting input from the members upfront it was all done very backdoor like, hidden from view, unseen, and then just suddenly thrust upon us like some kind of bushwhacking ambush....leaving us all on the defensive and force to act in a knee-jerk responsive manner.
[quote]

This statement could be applied to both sides of the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larry

Nathan, you've got enough chassis there that you should request a homologation certificate IMMEDIATELY! Put your paperwork in now. That way you can (hopefully) end discussions of whether it is or isn't legal...and if it isn't, perhaps you can change anything found to be non-compliant.

---

Nathan, can you share with us when you plan to do the homologation and when the car is scheduled for debut at an SCCA event? I think those two milestones will put to rest a lot of the guessing going on in this discussion. Also, if you get it homologated and deemed legal now it should help your case if the new rules would make it illegal.

Also, can we see close up pictures of the areas in question?

Hi Russ:

We will have at least ten cars homologated this fall, maybe as many as fifteen. I'm preparing the final documents for the first five we've built right now, and they will be submitted to the SCCA in the next few days. The next five will be submitted shortly thereafter.

We have been developing a test plan for the fall, and once we think the car is ready we'll do some club races. Originally we hoped to have all the finished Radon chassis racing at the Winter Nationals, but that now depends on whether the car is banned for 2011.

Specifically which areas would you like to see?

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

Then where does that leave us? We designed a car in good faith to the rules in place, with full knowledge and communication with a member of the CRB, and are now faced with seeing thousands of man hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment rendered worthless....

Nathan

---

I'm sorry you got caught up in this. Hopefully there will be an equitable solution to this that will not screw you, while not disenfranchising all the current owners of F2000/FC/FF cars (a distinct possibility with allowing this type of construction), and one that will add stability, direction, and clarity to the rules.

Sincerely,

Very good intro, Lee! You can show him your scars and bruises! I really do feel for guys who invest their time, money and more money in an effort to bring a formula car into the market...and then we have the capriciousness of the SCCA to deal with. Some of my favorite examples are the SRF, which is allowed to have a "scabbed" roll hoop in spite of the prohibition to ALL other cars (per the GCR). We also had the FE gearbox debacle, which was resolved by allowing any innards instead of requiring the vendor to correct the failures and design problems. Both of these were done to benefit the SCCA. Perhaps Nathan's best route would be to ask the SCCA to take over the sales task for him. Other notable examples include fights over pistons, conn rods, heads, gaskets, etc.

I'm still amazed that the 87+ Reynard front bulkhead casting was sold to the SCCA as a "bracket." But then I was also amazed at the guy who said his required reverse gear was operational, but you had to crawl under the car and select it.

As racers, we all must have some mental deficiency that causes us to dedicate so much time and money in pursuit of..."the fame and glory associated with winning a race?" I'm just wondering if it's a genetic defect or what--and if anyone involved in bringing a formula or sports racer is subject to the same genetic flaw (they must be). Whatever it is, there is no cure, so may God have mercy on us when our time comes! In the meantime, the small portion affected with this affliction continues to do battle with each other.

I'm hoping that Nathan's car is in compliance. I have no idea whether it is, and I'm glad that I'm not tasked with making the decision. He clearly chose a high-risk approach, so we'll see if it pays off.

Larry Oliver

Thanks, Dave, I appreciate that.

We have no interest in disenfranchising current FC/F2000 racers. In fact, a healthy pro and club racing environment for FC/F2000 is the best possible outcome for us as a company. It's also what everyone involved in Radon Sport, who are not in it to get rich (obviously ;)), wants personally.

If the Rn.10 does end up with a competitive advantage over other cars, we have no issue with an appropriate adjustment in terms of a weight penalty and/or a different restrictor plate. We made that clear to the owners of the F2000 pro series many months ago. Close racing is the best thing about the F2000 pro series, and we don't want to ruin that.

Of course, it's pretty speculative at this point, since we haven't turned a wheel yet. I think people are being too quick to assume the Rn.10 will be fast out of the box, especially against Van Diemen and Citation chassis that have had 10-12 years of development by lots of experienced racers.

Nathan

to say no one will ever build a FC / FF again is a bit much Nathan. Especially considering I can pickup the phone right now and buy a Piper, citation, or Elan ( if Haas is actually willing to sell outside USF2000 which is debateable). Really nothing more then a scare tactic to try and sway opinions. Other cars are available and being built.

Hi Kevin:

What I said was "no one will ever build a new car for FF/FC again and the class will dwindle away." I apologize if that was unclear, but I meant a newly designed car, not an older design.

I'm pretty sure you can get a Piper FC from Doug in a reasonable time frame. I know you can't get a Van Diemen/Elan with a Zetec engine, and my understanding is you can't actually buy a complete Citation, it's more of a kit. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I will stand by my statement, which is that if this rules change is forced through, it will mean the end of FC in SCCA club racing. You may have a different opinion.

Nathan

yes I do. For decades people get involved and start claiming the end is near. Oddly enough we are still racing.1 or 2 chassis being built outside the rules wont end anything. Sorry, there are those that think your car doesnt fit the rules today let alone 2011 but thats for a a CoA to determine upon a protest and appeal.

Kevin how many?

How many races were you at this year where there was a real field of FC cars?

The club FC population is waning every year and there are no big number of

people buying new cars regardless of who the manufacturer is.

As an aside, when was the last car you bought from Elan/VD?

I hope you had a better experience than we did.

The largest group of FCs currently racing in the country is probably F2000

and how many new cars were entered to race with them this year?

Unless your at the pointy end of the grid, I doubt the Radon will be a must have

car immediately. As a car owner, I know eventually the 00-09 VD will soon be outdated

and a new car will be the must have to be up front anyway. If it is not the Radon it will

be someone else. While I don't believe FC racing will ever be "cheap" I think modular

hybrid design may well be a step in the right direction to at least improve driver safety

and help control escalating cost in the long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

Hi Russ:

We will have at least ten cars homologated this fall, maybe as many as fifteen. I'm preparing the final documents for the first five we've built right now, and they will be submitted to the SCCA in the next few days. The next five will be submitted shortly thereafter.

We have been developing a test plan for the fall, and once we think the car is ready we'll do some club races. Originally we hoped to have all the finished Radon chassis racing at the Winter Nationals, but that now depends on whether the car is banned for 2011.

Specifically which areas would you like to see?

Nathan

---

Interesting. I assumed (probably wrongly) that you only had to homologate the first one (for the series of cars to be built, assuming they are the same).

I was kinda hoping to hear you'd have a car at an SCCA race in 2010, just to get an indication if the car is considered leagal under the current rules. But, (if the new rules are implemented), like we may never know.

The pictures I'd like to see are of the areas where some people think do not meet the current rules. Maybe you could show close ups and describe why they are in compliance.

My hunch is that people may not necessarily be worried about the rn10 dominating because (as you say) the current VD cars and others have plenty of development. Maybe they are worried that any new cars designed for FC in the future will need to implement the same methods so as not to be at a disadvantage. Kinda like (but this isnt a good example), no one would build a car with outboard suspension these days because of the disadvantages, even though that may be simpler and cheaper.

Good luck. It will be interesting to see the new cars.

Like you Dennis I live in the NE. Which means club racing takes a hit because the drivers have migrated to the pro series. so to answer your question every one of them has had over 20 cars. Pretty damn good racing. There hasnt been a need to buy a brand new car because you can update what is out there to be competitive. If a new car is legal and smokes the field good on them ! It will drop entries though since it has been proven that people wont race an older car if they beleive its not competitive enough. Seen many 97's in the pro series lately ? I count 1. But that has nothing to do with wether or not 2 new chassis being built are legal or not so its a moot point.

In the NE there are far to many clubs with far to many races for everyone to be a large entry. that has nothing to do with chassis and I suspect you know that.

Frankly I couldnt care less what car is the fastest as long as they are all legal. I can prepare any car for any series.

I agree with you Kevin but my feeling is that the cars will be built regardless and if the Radon or the Firman get booted from club racing all you have done is guarantee that anyone who purchase one will not be participating at the club level, they will simply find another venue to race at.

If the car is proven to be a good, safer, easy to work on car in another venue, who lost out?

Yes the sacred formula will still be intact and both of the drivers who showed up to race their "competitive cars" can duke it out.

Given several of the nationals here in the NER only had 4 cars show up and we had two of them this year, makes it almost a moot point anyhow.

To Dennis's point:
"The club" is not just Nationals. At the last NHMS Regional, there were 9 FC's signed up. That was more than I've seen in years. The pro series cars are once again trickling down. So if the Radon and the new RFR are legal to run in the F2000 Pro series, even more of the current cars will trickle down. Personally, I like them trickling down. If these cars somehow are legal to run in the F2000 series, then the owners of that series will probably need to negotiate the SCCA Pro Racing sanction, and this topic will come up. I'm not yet sure how that will go, but if the series does allow these cars, then that will create a major split between the F2KCS and SCCA club. A lot of people who currently run both series will likely remain only in the club. With the insinuation that Richard Pare is the scapegoat and that everyone involved is purely motivated by keeping business, then I can make a counter insinuation that the owners of the F2KCS series are too closely tied to this Radon project. It smells wrong. Frankly, I think you're all shooting yourselves in the foot, but that is not my call.

There are other reasons for fewer FC's in the NEDIV Nationals - like NHMS in early April, and it was a single. Pocono this year was a single, so very few showed up. Look at last year's Pocono Double in our run group where there was not enough room on the grid to fit all of us. Traditionally, no one goes to the BeaverRun event for various reasons, and there was not a National at Summit. NEDIV had some political and inter-Regional issues this year that I think are somewhat resolved. I predict a higher turnout in NEDIV Nationals next year for formula and S/R.

Rob I agree that the club is not national racing only, I ran nationals and just about every regional in the northeast last year with a great schedule and the car counts were off.

I would agree every now and then you get a few more cars like the Glen National (8 cars) but the overall, FC racing in NER is certainly off.

We are all aware that there were many other reasons drivers left SCCA to go to F2K, the odds are that some of the guys who are currently running in club will go to F2K next season as well. I doubt you'll see the reverse but hey what do I know :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

Then where does that leave us? We designed a car in good faith to the rules in place, with full knowledge and communication with a member of the CRB, and are now faced with seeing thousands of man hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment rendered worthless.

---

I want to correct any ambiguity in my posting quoted above.

Although I did have many communications with a member of the CRB, who was very helpful in explaining the rules and giving me both the historical and his personal interpretation of the rules, he was by no means aware of every innovation in the Radon design.

Specifically, I never discussed the specific details (shape, configuration, mounting) of the cockpit protection panels to him and he never implied they would be legal.

Nathan

Nathan;

For the moment, let us assume that your car is approved and stands up to all the challenges (protests).

Where do you see the limit of this design approach? Obviously the rules will have to be to calirfied because this new interpretation.

You said that you honored the 6" fastening rule but you did not think it really was necessary. It appears that your safety panels are on the sides and possibly over the driver's legs. Why can I not build a proper carbon tub in 2 halves, top and bottom and assemble that with a tube frame inside? If I then enclose the tub in an outer shell of Kevlar and fiberglass or even just make the outer layers of the Kevlar and fiberglass. I don't see that the rules require any space between the safety panels and the outer body.

Why did you not fasten the suspension directly to the safety panels? I don't see what is in the rules that prevent you doing that. I don't think the body can be used as a structural member but if the body is only the 2 or 3 outer layers of my carbon tub and the outer body shell is cut around all the mounting points then that should suffice for the rules.

I doubt that you, Nathan, or any of your defenders have thought about how far we go down this road. But if the limit was clear maybe the opposition would be less intense. You obviously don't want carbon tube now, or do you?

I have 20 years of engineering on cars with composite tubs and aluminum monocoques before that. While what you are doing here may or may not represent an advance over a well done tube frame, I certainly can see major short comings in your design as a composite chassis and I can guess where you are going to have problems. What happens if the CRB does to you what they did to Bill Jongbloed and his new wheels? There they eliminated the rule that he had cleverly circumvented thus killing his business.

You have done 10 or was it 15 cars? You know that if your car works as you hope that may be the field of cars for the F2000 pro series. Who wants to show up with a known loosing effort in an obsolete car? But maybe we can put Fit motors in the cars and take the wings off and race until you do a FF.

Hi Steve:

I think I understand your concerns, and apparently they are shared by a number of people.

First, I think everyone, on both sides of this issue, shares a common goal, which is to improve the health of formula car racing in this country. No one is going to get rich from selling FC cars! Everyone involved in Radon Sport, and all of the first owners, have a long history in racing, and we all love the sport. Our goal was a safe, modern, easily maintained and fairly economical car, and we want it to be competitive with any current or imminent design, but we have no interest in "killing" the class, either at the pro or club level, and no desire to make any existing FC car uncompetitive.

If you can accept that, I would think we could find a solution to the current rules issue.

And, actually, I have thought a lot about exactly how far down this "road" a hybrid chassis could be taken, and explored a number of alternative designs, some that are very extreme interpretations of the rules. It's exactly that design exploration that leads me to conclude that a design as you suggest will have no competitive advantage over a well-done tube frame or hybrid chassis.

If you design a tube frame that meets all of the requirements for rollover protection and bracing required in the GCR, you already have a fairly substantial chassis that weighs a certain amount. If you go further and attempt to meet modern FIA standards (as we did, and it appears as you did in the Citation), then that chassis gets even heavier. At that point you have a choice as a designer: add gussets, bracing tubes, and metal bulkheads (where allowed) to achieve your desired torsional rigidity, or accomplish that bracing with composite panels that also serve as cockpit protection and mounts for shift linkages, anti-roll bar adjusters, instruments, etc.

Building a completely separate tub that wraps around the tube frame, mounts the suspension, and serves as the main structure of the car would be heavier and somewhat redundant, so the resulting car would likely be slower (and more expensive) than a hybrid or bare tube frame.

Despite that, I would support a revision of the rules that clearly defined the limit of cockpit protection panels or "hybrid" construction, perhaps one based on the language in current FIA standards. I would also be willing to modify our existing cars to meet any reasonable new rule (preferably I would like to have some input, as certain changes would be very expensive for us given our tooling investment).

I would be glad to discuss specifics, but this probably isn't the place. As I've said before, anyone is welcome to contact me via a private message and I'll give you my contact info.

Regards,

Nathan