Matt,
As always, thank you for your entertaining comments. ;)
Printable View
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by nulrich
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by nulrich
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:
I want to correct any ambiguity in my posting quoted above.Quote:
Originally Posted by nulrich
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
i'm a simple guy, some might say simpleminded, and i tend to see things in black and white. gray areas bother me.
nathan, in your above posts, you refer to "tube frame" and "hybrid" as different configurations.
this class is and always has been based on "tube framed" cars only.
mark d
And the rules are very old. I don't care if the radon has panels and tubes or all tubes. Put an approved FC motor in it and let's go racing.
If someone makes an expensive FC car, don't buy it.
People pay more for a db6 ff than a current VD Zetec. Because it's a good car. Not because of this or that.
If I buy a radon. Cole, Nikki and Revere are still going to beat me.
Build the car. Let the car race. Keep it simple.
Nathan,
If you need support, let me know what I can do.
joe,
you're exactly right, keep it simple. letting this new configuration in will do exactly the opposite.
mark d
I am going to have to borrow a line from Chas who commented that this represents a change in the DNA of FF and FC construction. This should NOT be a debate about the legality or illegality of a particular car, but about whether the FF/FC communities want to travel down this slippery slope. By focusing on the legality of a particular car that represents a significant deviation from accepted construction techniques we are permitting the future of the class to be determined by persons who are most likely the least educated of all on these issues.
If we as a collective class (FF/FC) wish to move to plastic or hybrid tubs/frames then WE should discuss and ultimately vote on such with our input to the CRB and BOD. I for one do not want something this important to be decided under the guise of whether a car complies with a set of regulations that are thought to be less than clear and subject to varoius interpretations by a small group of individuals.
John
Mark,
I've never called you simpleminded (to your face):p. Get back to selling tires so you can affrd to race more next year.
[FONT=Verdana]I have been a long time reader of Apex Speed and recently I have been following this thread with quite a lot of interest. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]After going through the posts, I get this impression that certain old school individuals are against new technology and actually are doing a good job of denying this at the same time. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]I find this 'rules clarification' thing quite hilarious, which requires a rule re-write! Now, honestly, no one in the right state of mind is going to buy this. Like one of the posters mentioned, why not argue the legality of the technology being introduced under current rule wordings? Why require a re-write if the design is illegal? [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]I have been involved in the Motorsport community for quite some time and I have never seen anything like this before, at least here in the [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]UK[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]. All I can say is some people fear that the introduction of this new chassis may render their old cars obsolete. Well, it is about bloody time some one has come up with a better design with-in the existing rule wordings. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]This is 2010 and not the 80's. [/FONT]
Mark, I completely agree. That is the essence of this discussion. IMO, if "hybrid frames" are allowed, the class, as we know it, will likely become extinct. Even if the Radon does not prove to be a performance advantage, a car designed to the next stage of rules creep will. And once the rules have crept, they are almost impossible to restore to the previous state. It's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark defer
You have been around F1 too much. :) But, even (and especially) in F1, things must be clearly written so that innovative people do not stretch the rules beyond their intended limit. And, if they do, the rules are redone to eliminate the loopholes.Quote:
Originally Posted by asw
Actually, sir, you obviously do not know the intent over all the years of the class' existance of the rules being clarified. Up until now, everyone has adhered to the intent. But, as I said previously, intent is not sufficient. The rules have to be stated clearly enough so that honest people with a lack of knowledge of the intent can not think an FC with something other than a pure tube frame with the stated/allowed exceptions is only an innovation, and not a breach of the rules.
Thus, this clarification under discussion is absolutely necessary so that the intent is stated clearly, and not just inferred as it has been for years.
Maybe I missed it in this fascinating discussion but what exactly is the Radon "front bulkhead" constructed from that parts of the front suspension mount to? Also what exactly does it mount to? "Forgetting" for now about any supplemental reinforcement by the safety panels and the innovative floor solution, it seems that the front and rear suspensions need to be STRONGLY connected by the tube frame and by whatever "bulkhead/brackets" that currently are accepted such as the big casting for the suspension/bellhousing/trans on my 85 VD (Swift copy) and whatever is done with the front casting on the Reynard.
Thanks,
Dick
85VD
[FONT=Verdana]Dave,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Like you mentioned in your post, let us take Formula 1 as an example and look into FIA’s intent.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Over the past few years, the FIA has had this noble intent of promoting overtaking during the races and has written numerous rules to enforce designs that would do that. For the teams, as you will appreciate, they are in it to win it. After all this is what motor racing is all about.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Now, the rulebook is the only document a designer has while designing the car and he or she will try his best to come up with the best solution with in those rules. This is where all the innovation comes from – unless the rulebook says, no innovation please or people promoting innovation are not allowed to race! [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]It is the FIA’s responsibility to be clear in what it intends to do and the rulebook should reflect that. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]If you recall Brawn GP’s double deck diffuser, it was clearly with-in the rules and the team also won their case with in the FIA court. That design indeed reflected the designer’s intent of coming up with the best possible aerodynamic solution for that region and it was all with in the rules. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]In order to enforce their intent, the FIA did change the rules from 2011 onwards (to ban double deck diffusers) and most importantly, it consulted all the teams. This was to make sure that every one gets plenty of time to adjust their designs.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]The FIA did not punish Brawn GP for coming up with an innovative solution with-in the rules nor did it do a last minute rule re-write. It rather followed a clear and fair procedure. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]This is certainly not the case here, is it then, Dave? So many old schools are pushing for a last minute rule change and do not even know (or even care) how to do it fairly. [/FONT]
That is what we are trying to do. Unfortunately SCCA is not an autocracy. The inertia is too large to do stuff until the poop hits the fan.Quote:
Originally Posted by asw
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]Quote:
Originally Posted by asw
This is, again, not a change - it is a long overdue clarification. The fault, if any, lies with the inertia of SCCA, and the historical lack of action on rule clarifications until the situation is very serious. In my opinion, in an ideal organization, this clarification (and many others still undone) should have been there long ago, because the clarification's wording was ALWAYS the rules' intent. And everyone involved, up to this year, understood that. It is unfortunate that this didn't happen in a timely fashion, but we are trying not to compound the mistake of doing this late by making a change in the long-understood intent (pure tube frame w/ stated exceptions) of the class to something (composite frame members) it was NEVER intended to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by asw
A pure tube frame car is logically a frame upon which both the front and rear suspension are attached.
That was blown away by the Swift DB1, which made all other cars obselete because it broke the intent of the rules (rear suspension no longer attached to the frame).
It's always easier to make money as a race car manufacturer by 'changing' the rules than by following them.
My personal feeling is if you can afford a TIG welder, teach yourself to weld, buy grinders, air tools, drill press, band saw, etc so you can work on your steel tube frame, then you could just as easily buy some carbon, epoxy and vacuum bags and learn to work with composites. But hey, it's more fun to remain stuck in the 1970's forever !
asw;
UK Formula Ford is a steel tube frame car class. I think that your rules have been updated over the year so that no one would even dream of attempting a "hybrid" framed car.
Nathan;
You could help me and the other skeptics about the legality of what you are doing by actually giving us a proposal for the rules governing your "safety panels". Currently there is no provision for such a structure within the rules as I read them. In fact most of the argument for your car being legal is that the rules, as you interpret them, do not forbid such a structural component.
As DW pointed out, your car may not be any better than a more "conventional" design. It is the future and what someone else will come up with that is the over riding issue here. Until that issue is settled, I think I will stay in the opposition camp.
For the moment, I must join Mark Defer's club of limited intelligence. You haven't convinced me that the rules allow this thing.
There have been plenty of posts about rules changes happening through the back door. Well this is a real rules change. I think we should follow proper procedures and change the rules before this car is allowed to run as an FC. It can always run as FA or FS temporailry. Zetec powered cars have run as FA for years and there is no question about the frame and the attached panels being legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stohr
I think I will quit posting. Lee is saying it better than I can.
[FONT=Verdana]Dave, [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]You keep on talking about this 'long understood intent' and never admit the current rulebook’s responsibility for communicating that intent. At least, you have admitted that the SCCA is incompetent when it comes to such matters (hilarious to hear something like this about an institution of that size).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]You then say that it is time for clarification and do not call a re-write a change. A chassis that is legal under current rule wordings suddenly becomes illegal after the clarification, which is a re-write. Is it not changing the rules?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Even though, say the rules are changed like this - don’t you think it should be done in a fairer manner that would allow all affected parties adapt to this change. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]This is why it is important not to allow every micky mouse engineer, technician etc have a say in serious matters such as this. Authority should be placed in people who follow a certain code of conduct and understand the consequences of their actions.[/FONT]
You mean you're still wearing those bellbottom pants, Steve ?
:)
[FONT=Verdana]asw says "(hilarious to hear something like this about an institution of that size).[/FONT]"
You obviously haven't been to Topeka, Kansas.
steve,
mark defer's club of limited intelligence?
i kinda like the ring of that.
hey old man morgan , want to join?
mark d
I received this from a source very well versed in the history of FF (and as a result, FC) chassis rules:Quote:
Originally Posted by asw
----------------------------------------
"... the British FF rules have had the almost exact same "stressed panel" rules that we have for 25+ years, and he would note that no manufacturer over there has ever attempted the same sort of end-run around those rules ( and if someone did try, it's pretty obvious that they didn't get away with it)- assuredly they have been just as aware of the "loophole" as all the manufacturers over here have been - it has actually been publicly discussed may times on ApexSpeed and the old FF Underground well before the Radon came along - and the opinion of everyone to date is that to try to implement such a design went squarely against the intent of the class structure."
----------------------------------------
So, I rest my case. You can continue to rail against the clarification all you want, but it's pretty obvious what the rules have ALWAYS intended. The SCCA rules just have not to date put it in words. And, that's what the clarification is attempting to do.
To argue this further is fruitless.
[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=4]I’ve gotten 5 or 6 calls this week from people all over the country telling me about this great thread. Why? I have no idea, everyone knows I’m a nobody in the racing arena now. But, at one point, when I owed ½ of the best F2000 Pro series ever to exist, when F2000 racing was legendary, I was the man, the rule book guy. Over those years the tech guys at SCCA and I had a great relationship keeping the F2000 Pro Series and the club rules the same so that it would benefit both of us. The Pro guys bought new cars every year and the club guys bought the old ones from them, BTW, that’s 99% of the cars your all using now. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=4]Anyway… from what I read here we have another guy ( Nathan) wanting to build a better mouse trap, nothing new, I was getting 5 calls a year from “another new guy” that wanted to build a different car that would put everyone else packing. After seeing what they had and what they were thinking it was just another guy trying to get around the rules in some cute way that they thought no one ever looked at before. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=4]Remember the Euro-Swift? Brought it over with a raised floor, did it ever run with us? No, it was not legal. Tattuus, raised floor. They sent me over the building plans, I told them it was not legal so they redesigned it to comply. Great car. Some guy from Denver talked to me for 2 weeks straight about the advantages of his theory of F2000. Safer, cheaper, easier bla bla bla. We had the Plastic motor guy, had a 2 liter Ford engine built in plastic that could get us all this big sponser money if we would make it legal. Never to be heard from again.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=4]I don’t know if the SCCA is changing the rulebook now because of this new design, but I can tell you that if someone brought something to the track that was pushing the outer limits of the “spirit” of the rules or the class we would write a rule on the spot to make it not useable, ask the Cape Brothers. It was for the good for the entire class as it still is today. While the rulebook is not the greatest thing to read , it works. It’s been added to and massaged for over 30 years. For me, I had to learn the history of why the rule was there in the first place which then made it clear. You can only learn that stuff from the guys who have been around that whole time,Lathup, Stohr, David Baldwin of Van Dieman, etc. etc.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=4]I have a feeling that Nathan asked enough questions of the SCCA to not let them know what he was really thinking. Alas the bad feelings now.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=4]I have more to say but my hands are getting tired. I’ll leave with some topics that you can all ponder.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=4]Weren’t most of the backers of this project the same ones crying over an intake manifold that was OK’ed for use by the SCCA, then built by Elan, and then beaten down like an old mule because they were saying "change is no good for the class"….Hmmmmm[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=4]Wasn’t Radon friendly with the USF1 thing that never happened? They used up all of the money from the F1 fine and never showed up…Hmmmmm![/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=4]With 2 or 3 F2000 Pro series having not enough fully funded teams is there any reason to reinvent the wheel and muddying the waters…..Hmmmmm![/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=4]Nathan asked what happens now to the people that have paid for cars already……Hmmmmmm, Probably the same thing the happen to the money I had with Enron, bye bye, live and learn.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=4]The SCCA does not need to revise the rulebook, they just need to be the adult in the room and learn to say NO![/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=4]Love you all, Mike Foschi ( well not all, you know who you are)[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Next thing that will happen to FC is that people will want to start using fuel injected motors, different wing combination's and maybe even AERO wheels.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark defer
I found this link about how FC will die if the Zetec is introduced because it would make all the pinto cars obsolete...
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/prin...p?t=3312&pp=25
Here is a post for some very fancy wheels that went and found a loop hole in the rules...
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38095
Bottom line is that a chassis design like this isnt going to kill the class as anyone knows it. Piper didnt kill it, Elan, VD, Swift, Sauce wont kill it either.
This is a club. We dont have our kids college funds in the cars. They are not investments.
Make the rules to ensure the cars are safe and people like me dont try to build a death trap and hurt myself or others.
Make sure the rules allow for min weights, HP and torque equality and blah blah blah.
All the respect to everyone on the board and the club members, just leave well enough alone. If someone designs an unsafe car, stop it from racing. If someone has a different car than what we already have...its ok.
Apparently not. A shame really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtovo
Often times a fresh set of eyes looking at something the rest of us have been staring at for years comes along. That fresh set of eyes reads the rules for what they actually says and not what we thought it said or customarily interpreted it to mean.
At least until someone decides to add curvature and a core.:D
On closer examination of the pics in the first post, it appears that the carbon panels are most definitely on the outside of the tube members.
IMHO, "Interior panels" means panels that are right next to the driver, not on the other side of the frame.
INHO, this construction is clearly in violation of the GCR restrictions on CF.
Now they would be perfectly legal IMHO if they were on the INSIDE of the tube members.
Since no one has posted in over 4 hours, had to keep the rants going.;)
owend one, it was a piece of crap. I did have fun driving that car, but certainly not a rocket ship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Foschi
[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Calibri]
[/FONT][/FONT]Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Foschi
major difference being, that this thing will be available to anyone who can plunk down loot and not just the "factory team". Also the people backing this are honest and solid people. The former Elan folks involved with the intake manifold and the "factory team" didn't (and still don't) have a stellar rep for being honest, reliable, or "stand up guys".
USF1 or the 12 year olds on the mega-expensive "road to nowhere" subsidized kickback program? Pick your stillborn poison. Both suck(ed).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Foschi
I'm pretty sure the big series (f2kcs), has a pretty good car count and most everyone pays their bills without corporate handouts (or perhaps you've forgetten how to count above 12? or was it 15?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Foschi
unfortunately that is one of the points where you and I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Foschi
It's up to the club and it's members to decide the fate or our rules and formula; and that will determine the fate of the this car. If it's not legal, the guys who invested venture capital are out, but they all probably knew it was a possibility, hence "investing venture capital".
I will say, based on what I know of the guys involved with this, if the radon (and subsequent designs) is/are rendered illegal, I doubt they'll do something silly like throw a temper tantrum and start a series where it can be legal out of spite.
They're stand up guys, who will take the hit, move on, and continue to work to keep f2000 racing: fun, (relatively) reasonably priced, and one of the best places to learn to drive.
love ya too mike.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Foschi
Hey Steve,
I need to do more research into files that are years old to really have a heads up answer on the internal protection panels.
But, my recollection is that for the last few years SCCA has been allowing protection panels on the outside of the frame, as long as they are inside the bodywork and not "licked by the airstream".
Of course this was a "interpretation" of the rules, by officials. I have seen numerous FCs with protection panels outside the frame tubes. I believe Kevin at Comprent was selling the pieces for VDs. (I have not verified that yet.)
A few years ago it was a major thread on Apexspeed. Where many pointed out that impact panels inside the frame would be only as strong as the fasteners, and that if they were outside the forces would be spread all along the tubes. I believe there was something in writing by Gomberg, or Clayton (during his era).
But, my point is that there is some history there. Maybe a precedent?
MDCLI
Foschi - you fruitcake, what the hell is up with the font (going out on a limb thinking you know what font means). I have a 30" LCD and I can't read what the hell your talking about. Bill calls me and says I need to print out what you wrote and mail it to him - because he can't read it - WTF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Foschi
The font is about the only thing tiny about you - well, that and one other thing, I hear.
What the hell - make it bigger next time
:trophy_silver: - Yea, because of you... :kiss:
Nathan, there are a number of design issues on your car that I am concerned about WRT the GCR. While at this time I do not think that the design meets the letter & "intent" GCR, I am not willing to categorically state that I think it is illegal until I have actually seen the car in person & can make a better personal judgement.
I also think that it is the responsibility of any race car designer to take advantage of every opportunity they deem available within their interpretation of the rules & I think that you have done just that.
I also know, from personal experience, that there are potential downsides to these "creative interpretations" of the rules. For example one of our complete car designs was protested at the 2005 Runoffs as not legal for multiple items. After much discussion with the tech stewards we were found completely legal and raced the car only to crack a wheel while leading the Runoffs. The point I am trying to make is that during the following winter the SCCA (CRB) made a "rules clarification" That outlawed the cars as raced. This required much modifcation to the car. We still won the Runoffs 2 seasons later but after an insane amount of $$$, redesign & fabrication work.
I suspect from what I have seen of your car & after personally reviewing every line of the GCR that refers to FC & FF that you should be prepared to accept the potential consequences of your very creative & innovative design. I also congratulate you on your efforts.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
How much does a Radon FC cost?
Just to recap - what is it exactly that Radon did wrong? Carbon anti-intrusion panels on the outside of the frame ?