Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Gonzalez
Who are "these guys?" Who is in the position of power? You should really stop with the poorly spelled innuendo.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Gonzalez
Who are "these guys?" Who is in the position of power? You should really stop with the poorly spelled innuendo.
correction should have been" You'se Guys" or however the hell you spell it
I guess we touch a nerve .
[FONT=Verdana]I agree with Al Guibord and I do believe that the proposed Rules Clarification or what ever you may call it will significantly reduce the growth of class by discouraging technological advancement thereby eventually creating and obsolete class which will have less appeal to the ladder climbing youth of open wheel racing. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]It appears through the multitude of postings that a few individuals are looking to protect their interests, while these folks are very intelligent people whose opinions and factual base information has been of great value to many, Clearly, I see that their opinions and direction in this matter has become emotionally driven to protect their own current interests.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Just my 2 cents gentlemen.[/FONT]
As many times in the past, Kevin Firlein is correct again.
Concentration and debate should be focused on the content and not the agenda. I believe the authors believe their agenda is as pure as the driven snow and founded on their beliefs.
Were there problems in the existing rules?
What are the perceived problems this rewrite addresses, and are they really problems in the membership's view?
What is the benefit of combining two class rules into one?
Going into the second decade of this millenium, and 25 years after the last major rewrite, does this proposal take in account changes in materials and techniques that have advanced in that time, and future changes in the coming decade?
And maybe, from an engineering and safety aspect, does it really matter if the bottom of the chassis is not parallel to the declared reference plane (Stan :thumbsup:)?
Those are the types of issues that need to be spoken to.
Perhaps I do not understand what is going on, but from what I can tell, the root problem is that some people feel the Radon is illegal, or ought to be illegal, or want it to be illegal. If you think it is not in compliance with the rules that existed when it was built, protest the car. If you think it ought to be illegal, state a case for making a car that was built to the rules illegal. I'd suspect you'd need a really strong case to justify outlawing a legal car, but you could possible sell it as a rules change for future cars, if you have a good reason that makes sence to the other competitors. If you just WANT it to be illegal, well, I don't see that as a justifiable excuse to retroactively ban a car under any circumstances.
Again, an opinion from the sideline. I can't afford the car anyway you look at it.
They have not brought it to a club race where it can be protested.Quote:
Originally Posted by swiftdrivr
Is that correct? Didn't they run it @ NJMP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Was the DB-1 good for FF? To soon to tell, but what if the Radon is a similar advancement. Could it be too much improvement or progress?
If the DB-1 was bad for FF, could some participants honestly feel the Radon is bad for FC?
Brian
Quote:
Originally Posted by swiftdrivr http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/imag...s/viewpost.gif
If you think it is not in compliance with the rules that existed when it was built, protest the car.
Of couse it can be protested, anything can be protested. However, if you want to protest that the bottom of the car is not parallel with the bottom of the body or some conceptually similar protest I think you will be out of luck.
Remember that Nathan followed the SCCA system procedures and asked and paid for a ruling from the SCCA that went all the way through the Court of Appeals. They ruled that his floor design/construction was compliant. I also realize that a couple of other issues were ruled as not compliant but I am sure that he has corrected those issues.
You had better figure something else out as IMHO he proved his design is compliant with the current GCR.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
They may have and I am just unaware. The only club event I was aware of was the drivers school in NH.Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
I'm probably FOS as usual.
Wren, you win; the SCCA School at NHMS was the only appearance at a Club event.Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
Josh, you're probably recalling the Monticello Test
Rick
http://www.fast-matt.com/radon_test/radon01.jpg
I think what I was doing was confusing my 4 letter track abbreviations, NHMS vs NJMP.
Why would you think a club race is the most likely place to be protested? I'd think it the least likely. The protest would be resolved in about 2 minutes (depending on how quickly the tech inspector can read).
The scrutiny at the Mosport F2000 race was much longer and much more expert than anything you'd ever see at a club race (tech at the NHMS school was very quick). As is appropriate for the first appearance of a new car, Mike Eakin spent much of his weekend going over the car with a fine tooth comb, asking questions of me, and discussing the car with other manufacturers and competitors. He's not only a National level scrutineer, but also knows more about these cars and the FC rules than any other tech inspector I know.
I'll let him speak for himself, but I'm certain that the car would not have been allowed to race if Mike had any question about it's legality. I'm also certain it would have been protested if another competitor (25+ of them, by the way) thought it did not comply with the 2011 GCR.
We'll do several club races before the end of the year. I'll make sure to send Wren a schedule so he can fly up and protest the car. ;)
Nathan
Have any of these people that are for this rule change or dislike the Radon design even seen the car or is this based on "he said she said" ?
In all of this, I have a very simple and straightforward question. I don't think that the answer should be top secret, although I'll bet that it is, and that I won't get a completely honest answer, despite the fact that it's really a very simple question. I would hope that Mr. Clayton might chime in here, although I would certainly understand if he doesn't.
The question is, "How many members of the SCCA Formula/Sports advisory committee have any financial interest in the manufacture of formula cars or parts, and if there is such financial interest, what is it?"
This question is very similar to the government requirement that the President reveal his financial information to the public - to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.
To quote Bob Woodward in All the President's Men, it would be wise to "Follow the Money".
Cheers,
Chris C.
chris may be on to something here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Camadella
perhaps there should be a rules change.
1) any members of the group who are essentially the "judge and jury" and ultimatley decide the rules of a class cannot be in the business of building cars or selling any parts ( part time or full time). if they want to be in business thats great, but it does seem to alter ones perception of how decisions might be made.
this just isnt passing the smell test................if it smells like poop, it probobly is poop.
the secrecy on who is the author doing proposing the rules changes only makes it stink that much more.
its good reading though.
A little birdie told me the following. I don't know if it's true but if the people mentioned could say that they are are not the ones responsible or not. I think that would be helpful.
" the rules proposal was written by John LaRue with help
from the two other Citation owners on the F/SRAC (Sean Maisey and Steve
Oseth) and the impetus behind the rules change is Phil Creighton"
If it's true, I would say that the people mentioned would help by telling their reason for for it. It would also quell the rumors and start basing things in facts.
Jimmy
Very good question! But I'm sure that is classified :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Camadella
Hay Phil,
I would not have said it to be emotion, I just don't care for tap dancing. I'm calling it as I see it. When you have people shooting there mouth off at car shows and other places saying things like WE are going to make sure this car never see the light of day, you start to see the big picture.
They tried once and now WE are at it again.
I am hoping that the SCCA will once again see thru this and do the right thing. And WE can stop wasting everybody time.
pretty easy to sort out Chris. On the BoD only 4 members are open wheel guys/girls. Lybarger provides to FV , Noble races a FV, Kephart races a one off FF, Creighton runs a prep shop for basically anything and provides wings and parts to FC.
on the CRB there isnt anyone linked to open wheel as far as I can tell. Closest is Gomberg who is a DSR guy.
On the F/SR comittee the list is longer obviously. LaRue owns and races a FF - sells nothing,Keith Grant owns and races a FA - sells nothing , Sean Maisey owns and races a Honda FF - sells nothing , Steve Oseth owns and races a Honda FF - sells nothing , Rick Silver used to race a FC but has dropped out - sells nothing and not sure why he is on committee still , and Finally Stan clayton who own a sportsracer and a FA and Dauntless racing with son Rennie who provide aero parts to sportsracer and Formula including the entire aero platform of our FC.
So I guess the answer to the question is 2 people on 3 committees have a selling interest in FF / FC and none produce entire cars.
If I missed someone maybe someone can fill in that name
I missed Fred Clark who builds the Caracal FV
If I had written this proposal, and it wasn't specifically targeting the Radon, I'd probably want to justify my reasoning for the rules change because it sure looks like the intent is to ensure that the Radon is not legal.
Mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by fvracer27
I'm not sure if Jim's "little birdie" is correct in who is behind the rules change. If he is, I can say with certainty that none of those individuals has seen the car. Many individuals inspected the car in detail at Mosport, including Ralph Firman, and I talked to a lot of people and answered a lot of questions.
Anyone is welcome to look at the car at any of the events we attend, we aren't hiding or covering up anything, and I invite interested parties to visit our factory if they want to see how the cars are made.
I have heard some ludicrous claims made by opponents of the car, and I don't know if they stem from ignorance or malice. I think we've done a good job so far (always room to improve), but, in the end, it's just another formula car.
Nathan
Along with my wife and son I own Dauntless Racing, which makes wings and bodywork for formula and sports racing cars. We do not make chassis or other mechanical bits. Jim Downing owns Downing Atlanta and John LaRue is a Hitco dealer (carbon brakes), but AFAIK no other members of the committee have a significant financial interest in racing, other than being competitors. Look, I understand your interest, but please...take off the tinfoil hat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Camadella
When I wrote above that I considered trying to outlaw the Radon "self interest", I didn't mean in the business sense. I meant in the competitive sense. A true high-nose design has significant potential advantages in a winged car over lower nose designs, so the fear on the part of some is that the Radon will render their cars relatively uncompetitive. That's understandable given that all of the major brands have rough parity after 25 years of development, but I think it's short sighted, as well.
Maybe the real question we should be asking is where do we want the classes to go? Should we continue to constrain FC with FF's chassis rules? Do we want future FCs to look like this RFR with its ridiculously extended floorpan? Or should we rewrite the FC rules to accommodate the fact that people are now once again doing serious aero development?
I absolutely agree. The problem is as soon as you fill the group with a bunch of "outsiders" those affected bitch and moan about the group not knowing/caring about the outcome. Imagine a bunch of Formula car folks deciding things for SM. IMHO, those on such panels/boards should voice their opinions but then abstain during votes where there is a conflict. Obviously they will still have influence, but that's about as good as it can get in the real world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Pitt
I'd guess a bit of both with a bit of self preservation tossed in. :thumbsdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by nulrich
"ridiculously extended floorpan":
hopefully we're not considering a secret organization of styling/design critics whose self empowered function is to propose changes to the formula (compliance terrorism) that prohibit anything they don't like, understand, or threatens the competitiveness of their brand of car/engine. the pundits and drivers more familiar with the styling/design solutions of the day said the "Hopeless Diamond" was UGLY and would never fly......... while it took some work, the "Hopeless Diamond" (aka: F-117) was demonstrated to be compliant with Mother Nature's rules AND a better mousetrap.
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
The car is stunning! Just awesome looking! I kinda want one. Best of luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Smith
Its a good thing 1) they didn't listen to the naysayers, and 2) the competitors for business didn't change the requirements after the fact to ban the use of "body panels not in a specifically rounded form" to disallow a creative solution.;)
The problem with the F-117 was it disenfranchised existing members and made their planes uncompetitive. It forced others to spend more money if they wanted a chance to win. The War Rules Committe should have rewritten the rules to prevent F-117 type fighters.
Radon above (blue) is a stunningly beautiful design and is the 'future' (or should be).
If somebody wants to protest it there is a legitimate reason.. Driver in photo doesn't pass the 'broomstick test' :meatball:
not in favor of the rules as written.
Our class should evolve. if no new cars are introduced the used market, and majority of club racers will never see any reasonably priced, modern cars. a better mouse trap is good for long term health.
it gets tiring to hear the arguement of the equipment being devalued. does anyone remember the advice we all give and have recieved.... don't drive what you can't afford to ball up & walk away from. further more, many of us spend more in a season supporting the car then car is actually worth.
i would like to see more engineering like the Radon. beautiful car that raises the bar on many standards. shame instead of stepping up to plate to build a better car we get this rules change tossed on the table.
i realize from smarter minds then my own the rules need some clarification and updating. maybe something needs to be done, idk.. but if a rules change accours i beleive it should more focus on saftey standards, and updating for use of materials for things like body work. wings etc. how can you not have carbon boddies in FF & FC when it's perectly legit in FV :confused:
That is because he has a VERY big head. You should hear him!Quote:
Originally Posted by rickb99
Well, cause FV is obviously the hot bed of technology and where all significant technology advances have been made in the last 45 years! Just look at how far our brake technology has come :D
I would love to know what the big picture is. Maybe you could explain it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Gonzalez
This is not a problem now and the decision makers already abstain from something that affects their business or the class they compete in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Pitt
It's under "what do you think" because it came out of committee. No big secret.Quote:
this just isnt passing the smell test................if it smells like poop, it probobly is poop.
the secrecy on who is the author doing proposing the rules changes only makes it stink that much more.
It looks like you already got your answer and I am sure it is a big disappointment to you. Larue sells brakes to Indy car guys and Stan sells bodywork to xSR and formula guys. Where would you follow the money to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Camadella
I would not be protesting the floor or the side panels. I really hope that I get a chance to protest, but there doesn't have to be a big hurry because as long as the 2012 GCR reads the same as the 2011 GCR, I think I will be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by nulrich
Well, that was the plan. There was a committe being formed with me as the sole decision authority to remove anything that I did not think was pretty enough. But, now that you have caught us we will have to come up with another plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Smith
I love your posts, but I have no idea where you come up with these insane ideas.
The problem with the F-117 was that it ****ing sucked. I have to drive by one on Holloman AFB all the time and it stands as a monument to things that seemed like a good idea at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by RussMcB
The way this is being handled by SCCA helps reinforce the whole Secret Car Club of America mentality that some people have. It only makes me less interested in coming back to the FC class if this how people are going to handle things.
I've figured it out!
SCCA is trying to drive all of us to FE!
FB- Shifters, engines...
FF- Engines. restrictor size, tires that don't fit...
FC- The Radon rules...
FA- really needs no help with a Toyota that has to be rebuilt every 2hrs for $100k ;)
Has to be some drama in FM, FV... just don't know what it is. Maybe we'll see some changes from the CRB soon.
FV had Manifold-gate a couple of years ago, but that has died down with new rules that actually did make some existing equipment illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by carnut169
Worked for me. I really enjoy owning my FE.Quote:
Originally Posted by carnut169
assuming for a moment this is NOT about:
the "wrong supplier" (and "wrong supply chain") is selling more compliant new FC cars than
the "right suppliers" (and "right supply chains") AND NOT about the "right suppliers" having
to invest in updated design(s) and tooling to compete in FC (and FB and FF)
and assuming for a moment:
we don't already have a secret group actively working to prohibit anything they don't like,
understand, or threatens the competitiveness/invested value of their brand of car/engine
answers to simple basic questions about the proposed changes should be readily available to the membership (your list of questions is probably different):
1.) who (member name) requested/proposed the changes? with what stated objective?
2.) what analysis or research was done by the F/SRC before voting to send the recommended
changes to the CRB?
3.) which members of the F/SRC voted FOR sending the recommended changes to the CRB?
4.) which members of the F/SRC voted AGAINST sending the recommended changes to the CRB?
5.) which members of the F/SRC abstained from the vote?
6.) which members of the F/SRC recused themselves from the vote?
7.) which members of the F/SRC were absent / unavailable to vote?
the Club's website shows nine members of the F/SRC. how many voted FOR sending the recommended changes
to the CRB? given the make-up of the F/SRC, volunteer members looking out for the good of the membership,
why haven't the members of the F/SRC explained their vote/position/view/objective/vision/....................... on
this extremely devisive set of proposed changes???
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net