Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
It is a FC
And this whole thread has bought back good heated debate. A good thing as long as things stay about the topic and do not get personal.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
It is a FC
And this whole thread has bought back good heated debate. A good thing as long as things stay about the topic and do not get personal.
Which ones? I only know of the winternational and a driver's school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Camadella
I wil propose this as a compromise. Get a car to the runoffs and let the CRB/COA take a look at it. I feel confident that this rules proposal would easily be shot down by the BOD if the CRB/COA comes back and tells them that the car is legal per the 2012 GCR. This would be the most correct way to deal with this entire issue.Quote:
If you want to buy your plane tickets, I will be happy enter a Radon in the FLR Glen Regional at Watkins Glen on Sep. 14-16, and you can bring your pre-filled protest forms with you.
As you may have noticed, this debate didn't start after the cars hit the track. One car finishing well in one race when all the other fast guys were sorting new cars is not sending everyone into fits.Quote:
Yes, it certainly is your job. One Radon did better than most and the reaction is now protection.
Speaking of that car, why haven't we seen it since the big shunt at Lime Rock?
I'm going to guess it is related to the carbon panels. I don't know much about their panels or what information they included in their self protest. I suppose it could always be the addition of the word "frame" to the FC rules. Trying to draw a distinction between "frame" and "chassis" was a part of their initial self protest.Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
Wren,Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Please re read rule D.4.c No Increase in bodywork Behind the centerline of the rear axle. My misconception was where the engine side covers radius down to cover undertay. But if it does not get any wider then it is legal. It is what I remember from Oseth's car not the fbs
My apologies to Steve and Richard. I should have known better.
John
Yes. Refer to measurement chart.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim morgan
John:
What exactly in the chart?
For FF rear body work and exhaust length changes from 100 to 80 cm.Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
The 16" rule only applies to FFQuote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
The stock DB-6 bodywork ends ~40cm behind the rear axle centerline. I think Jim has his as an FF, so unless he has added another 41cm of bodywork behind the stock bodywork, then this change would have no effect on him.Quote:
Originally Posted by BWC54
Lots of DB-6 FFs have DB-1 tails on them, if that takes them over the limit do they have to buy new tails?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
I would be surprised if a DB-1 tail puts them over the limit. The 80cm rule is to the back of an FC's rear wing. I don't think I have seen any FF's that are 8" longer than an FC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Valet
Didnt realize 80 cm was to the back of the FC wing, good to know. Thanks Wren.
The chart, at the time the DB1 was built, pertained to both classes - it actually originated from the British FF rules of the time - so I would be surprised if the Swift (as delivered) was longer than the 80cm in the chart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Didn't some guys add an aluminum extension to the DB1 tail early on, and then had to take them off? I would assume that the extension went to the 100cm written limit, which, if I'm correct, would mean that the original DB1 tail was built to the 80cm limit stated in the chart.
i just measured by porter db-1/6 tail and it is 34.5 from axle centerline to edge of the gurney. 80cm = 31.496":o
The exhaust on my piper will have to be raised approx 3". is the measurement now to the top or bottom of the pipe?:mad:
John
The 20-60 cm height is the "box' that the pipe has to fit within - eg - at least 20cm to the bottom of the pipe, and no more than 60 to the top.
I'm not sure that this is really a change at all - a few years ago I remember that there was a change given for the exhaust height (probably the lowering from 30 to 20) and I think it was at the request of an FF competitor. Someone can correct me if my memory is off on the details.
I believe also that there was a max height reduction for FF and FC exhausts done sometime in the early 90's while the chart was known to pertain to both classes- the high outlets were seen to be nice cookie cutters for any driver that went into the back of another car.
If they input the Kent and Honda engine rules into the new combined spec as they are currently written you might not have to raise the Piper exhaust because s.9 has a 10 cm min to the bottom of the pipe. I would like to know what they are going to do. I don't want to go through the time and expense to raise an exhaust that's legal now just because they combined the specs.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Robinson II
If there is an exhaust height spec in the Honda engine section of the rules, then it is the governing spec for cars with that engine and overrides the chart.
Just checked - yes, the Honda engine exhaust specs refer you to the Kent specs, and read as follows:
9. Exhaust Outlets
Exhaust outlets on cars registered after January 1, 1986 shall not
extend more than 60 cm (23.60”) behind the centerline of the
rear axle and shall be positioned between 10 cm (3.9”) and 60 cm
(23.6) from the ground, measured to the bottom of the exhaust
pipe.
So, as long as you meet those requirements, there isn't a problem.
Isnt this exactly what they are trying to clear up? I see they did catch the Honda clutch issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by BWC54
Richard,
What about the top height of aerodynamic devices being equal to rim height? Is this something that gets addressed in the drawing and only refers to front wings? I think that is the intention, but ????
John
There is currently one in the Kent engine spec and the Honda spec says the one in the Kent spec must be followed. The question is if they approve the consolidated spec are the going to change the minimum height in the Kent spec from 10 cm to 20 cm or leave it out of the Kent spec totally so that the table governs. If they are, then they should have included that rather than just have the title to the section.Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
Since they were not making any changes to the engine specifications, I suspect that they felt that there was no need to reprint them in the proposal.
Probably wouldn't be a bad idea in this particular case to add "For FC only" to the exhaust height specs in the chart - it certainly would eliminate the confusion, and eliminate the question as to which spec prevails.
the same goes for the rear overhang spec - if indeed some post-'86 cars have longer tails, the 100cm spec could be added back in where it originally was (or added to the chart as "FF Only"), and the 80cm length currently in the chart could be labeled "FC Only".
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Robinson II
That spec would certainly refer to FC front wings, but not to the rear for 2 reasons - a rear wing is mandatory, and it is referenced in the drawing in "C - Maximum Height from the ground"
The spec "E" up until 91 or so was labeled something like "Max Front Bodywork Height", but got changed when VD started making their cars much higher (early '90's). I remember that Steve and I were pissed because we had gone to a lot of trouble trying to fit everything under a foot cover that low, and VD just ignored it and got the rule changed in their favor.
However, looking at that spec now, I think it could easily be dropped, or relabeled FC Front Wing since it was never intended to refer to anything aft of the front axle centerline if FF or FC.
Good catch, guys.
This is clearly a change from the 2012 rules. The rule was clear, explicit and unbending to interpretation, the bottom of the tailpipe had to be within 60cm. With a DB6, Kent or Honda, the DB1 hytech header (designed under pre '86 rules) on a post '86 DB6 is illegal and has to be modified. Mine was angled down slightly to make the limit at the high end of the ride height range. On the Honda, HPD delivered it as the DB1 car was (their test mule) and the original Fit engine rules did not include the tailpipe height restriction so technically they delivered a legal part. Now, for 2012 DB6 - Honda owners had to angle them down to 60cm to the bottom of the pipe.Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
With this rewrite if your interpretation of the 'box' is accurate, then we have to angle them down another 2". Any height is fine, just freaken pick one because by the time I haul the car to a fabricator, buy the material, make a new support I've just spent a weekend's budget on chasing rules. Not cool. Frankly, the proposed rule is very open to interpretation the way it is written whereas the current rule is much clearer. Either state the box it must fit in with the new language or pick the bottom of the pipe as it was (or chose 65.08cm as the top of the box). Just don't leave that part of the proposal subject to varied interpretations.
No has changed at all - my interpretation of the 60cm being the upper top-of-the-pipe limit is incorrect since the ruiles still state bottom of the pipe. Shows how long it has been since I last looked at that part of the rules!
Sorry 'bout the confusion! :o
Richard,
D.6.e the shaping of the lower surfaces to create Venturi tunnels is prohibited - isn't this a diffuser? Should this rule only apply to FF?
Venturi tunnels and diffusers are considered to be 2 different things, but are damned hard to define in words, so when the rules were revamped in 2010, they decided that a picture was the best way to get across what they were describing. With the picture missing in the proposal that is included in the CGR, it is less obvious as to what exactly they are talking about.
This is the same rule (with no changes) already in effect that covers both FF and FC since the 2010 rewrite.
I asked because back in 07 when Coello was protested over having a "diffuser" the only wording was the Venturi tunnel. By the time the officials looked at his car the piece had been changed and had no sides, therefore it was not a tunnel and deemed legal. However it was stated that if it did indeed have sides it would be considered a tunnel. IMO, if a diffuser has sides, it is a tunnel. They might be shallow tunnels but they are tunnels
John
And therein lies some of the problem - many Stewards wouldn't know a diffuser from a screwdriver, and defining what is an isn't a diffuser verses a venturi tunnel to the uninitiated is almost impossible to do without still leaving way too many bad interpretations. Hence the picture. No, going by a picture isn't exactly perfect either, unfortunately, but at some point people need to start using a bit of common sense (another imperfect attribute as well!).
That is probably the one area of the rules where any wording used will not cover all contingencies, and therefore not please everyone.
Richard,
That could be cleared up by not allowing undertrays on FF
While it's not got real side pods.....it's got sides............question and comment........would this mean Harvey Templeton's old FF would be illegal? Nothing should ever make that car illegal.
The pre 86 rules aren't changing.Quote:
Originally Posted by EYERACE
No - that car is governed by the pre-"86 rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by EYERACE
And it is a waaaaaay too cool a car from that era to ever change anything in the original design!
Actually, for FF the rules banned both diffusers and venturi tunnels.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Robinson II
The problem was that without a definition, how the heck could anyone declare that a shape that fit the 1" rule was illegal? Without a definition, any Steward at any track could protest almost anything and probably justify it - which is exactly why LaRues undersides were perfectly flat - we had no clue as to where the limit might be. Steve and I told the CRB many times "Tell us what a diffuser is and we won't build it".
FYI ... I have a typical VD wing and being mounted on a LD200 it is 81.25 cm from the axel centerline [plus of minus a row of a$$h@ll$$] sooo I dunno ... rule wise ... :beer:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Valet
Dog,
Hate to tell you, there is no typical VD wing. Probably 60 combinations of supports, bottom planes, and side panels. Mixing and matching those elements can get you in trouble if you are not diligent in measuring. Just ask Chuck Moran sometime. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
OK, here is your executive summary (there are actually more items, but these are definitely sufficient):
D.3.b - Specific language has been added (no other panels other than those specifically state are allowed) in order to disqualify our reinforcement panels.
D.3.d - Language added to specifically disallow our current interior panels.
D.3.f - Change in the definition of the word "bracket" - wording that disallows our current shock mounting arrangment.
D.4.f - Removed wording that formerly allowed the Radon cockpit interior panels, as well as our carbon radiator inlet ducts, where provide impact attenuation.
D.4.f - Definition of cockpit clearly redefined to disagree with the previous ruling of both the CRB and the CoA, which we have in writing.
There are actually more items - but the only reason that you would even think about putting this wording in there is because of the Radon - think about it - is anyone else affected by these rule changes?
One of the most interesting points is the redefinition of what's the inside of the cockpit. Apparently, those panels that your arms and legs touch (in the Radon) are no longer cockpit interior panels. Ummm - OK. Are they exterior panels? In a production based car, the door panels are outside the roll cage - so would you call those interior panels? I'll bet that almost anyone would, but these rules don't.
I really don't think that it's possible to argue that these rules were NOT written specifically to eliminate the Radon from competition in FC. I think that virtually any outsider, given all of the information available, would come to the same conclusion, and I think that a jury of non-racers would do the same. The fact that Radon, who again sold more FC cars than anyone this year, were not consulted in any way regarding the rules change further solidifies this thought.
Cheers,
Chris
Frog this is Dog ... lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Roger that ... but 100 cm is a lot, has anyone moved it that far back ... :confused: ... but if this rule holds [80cm] then a band saw and drill press used upon the brackets is all that is needed in my case.
For the record. This weekend i spoke with both Mike Borland (Spectrum Race Cars), and Ralph Firman (RFR), and neither knew of the impending rule change. Ralph remembered the meeting at RA Runoffs in 2010. That was his last touch on the subject.
Borland was thinking of delivering a new FC car, possibly by WG in October. He is now on "hold" because of impending changes. Waiting to see.
Nathan says he was not contacted.
Of course we can't count Paul Rieffle (Metrik), because he was flying under the radar. But he didn't know there was an approaching re-write.
So the constructors that have delivered the most new cars in the past three years were not consulted.
If you are at 81 cm you're illegal now before the proposed rule change. The table for FC didn't change. The change from 100 cm to 80 cm applies to FF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reddog
None of these are rules yet. I can see why it feels like a conspiracy, though.
I think you meant legal ... Thanks ... I wasn't sure it didn't appy to both ... with or without wings ... still a wing back 100cm is way back ... :beer:Quote:
Originally Posted by BWC54
No, I meant illegal. If you have a wing that measures 81.25 cm from the rear wheel centerline to the back of the wing it's illegal under the current rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reddog
You are correct, for some reason I thought 100 cm was the correct number and not 80cm ... a senior moment ...
OK I am really dumb.
Can someone point out to me the part about bodywork not allowed to be wider than 16 inches at any point behind the rear wheels.
Have looked and looked.
Have not been able to find the diagram though.
Time for people who don't own FC
cars to leave the rules alone.....
9.1.1.D.8.d page 257Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
It is an FF only rule and not in a diagram.
Steve,
Shame on you! A long time FC competitor and you can't figure out the confusing state of two different class rules merged into one. Oh my. :o
You just provided clear evidence to prove one of my points. ;)
Thanks Wren.
Froggie, in my old age some things are not so obvious as they once were.
It's Friday night on a three day weekend ending the summer. If you have any money you are at a racetrack somewhere having fun.
I heard that the CRB may discuss this item next Tuesday in their conference call. If so, I haven't had time yet to compile a definitive letter.
I have been sitting the last few evenings trying to read this thing line by line, and compare it to the current regs. It is not an easy read. It takes a lot of time. The new proposal doesn't contain the omitted language marked out, so one has to do a lot of cross-checking. I am beginning to wonder how many on the FSRAC have actually studied this thing line by line, and asked, Why are we changing this line? Why are we omitting this line? From a lot of emails i've sent and received, I don't think the CRB has studied this thing line by line.
I am trying to be objective about this and not flame away on Apexspeed. I have questions, and so far i see new loopholes being created.
I'm most concerned that I can't get my thoughts all organized and submitted by next Tuesday. :(
I think Tom Valet made a good point. We don't really know why some of these changes are being made. And, Wren made some good points about writing rules in reponse to cars instead of ruling on cars based on the rules.
If i had to vote right now, just because i don't have enough analysis completed, I would have to say "hell no." ,or at least "wait a minute while I catch up and try to understand what you are trying to do."
Anyway guys, it may be time to send in something to the CRB and BOD, else they get on the phone Tuesday and think no one really cares or objects... and then they decide...let's go forward.
The only thing i am sure of at this juncture, If passed this is a rule change not just some clean-up or clarification.
YMMV but... if you don't vote, you can't bitch.
Doing my research, and thus re-reading this thread, i did find pictures reflecting what JR2 was talking about.
Unfortunately, i don't have the "before" pictures of JR2's swift, only the "after hacksaw".
I just know everyone is sitting on the edge of their chairs waiting for my review of this rule change. ;) :)
I have spent way too much of this weekend going through it and the current GCR line-by-line. I am honestly wondering how many FC and FF owners have attempted this excercise? Does anyone really care?
I still don't believe we need this rewrite, things have been sweet the last couple of years on the rules front, but i fear the train has momentum.
I'm going to just skip all the stuff about the new rules for interior cockpit panels and preventing the "Son of Radon". I have my opinion and you don't care.
As to the rest of the proposed document:
1. D.2. Where it outlaws “metal matrix”, I think it would be clearer if it said “metal matrix composites”. My brief research says metal matrix is not clear enough, it’s sort of slang.
2. D.3.a. There is no specification of where the front bulkhead has to be in relation to the front axles/wheels. So one might have the front bulkhead moved back a foot or so from where we are used to seeing it. (think Kyle Connery [FONT=Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings]J[/FONT][/FONT] ) The front bulkhead could be back at the rear of the front wheel. Maybe possible because…
This has been added: This does not preclude a secondary forward bulkhead ahead of this “front” bulkhead).
So one might hang parts the front suspension off this secondary front bulkhead ahead of the front bulkhead. See where I’m going with this? Maybe F1 style noses on FF…
[FONT=Times New Roman]3. D.3.a. Stressed floor now doesn’t have to be flat. First time since 1986….[/FONT]
4. D.3.b. Says: No panels or other components other than those which are explicitly described within the “Preparation Rules” set forth herein may be attached to the chassis/frame.
See #5 below. I read all of “Preparation Rules”. No mention of radios, ECUs, St. Christopher statues, etc. So, those things can’t be attached to the chassis?
[FONT=Times New Roman]5. D.3.f A change in the definition of bracket, requiring that it be metal (rather than non-ferrous, which means any material other than steel or iron, including plastics and composites). Took out “may be non-ferrous” replaced with “shall be metal”.[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]f. Brackets [/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic]are [/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic]permitted [/FONT][FONT=Univers]for [/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic]the exclusive purpose [/FONT][FONT=Univers]of mounting components, such as the engine,[/FONT][FONT=Univers]transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels,[/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic].[/FONT]
This bracket thing could be a can of worms. I see cars with tons of nylon zip-ties, and Velcro holding all kinds of things to the chassis (Radios, ECUs, wiring, ) that are not engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, etc., etc. What is a bracket and what is not? If a plastic radio canister is zip-tied to a chassis rail, can it be protested?
[FONT=Times New Roman]6. Deleted D.4.f: They deleted this language: f. Carbon fiber is not permitted in any external bodywork. Cockpit interior panels, internal ductwork, air intakes and mirrors are not subject to this restriction. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]This change now outlaws the use of carbon for air ducts. A problem for some Tatuus, their radiator ducts are carbon. And, the Radon had really neat CF side attenuators built into its radiator ducts. Are Jeremy’s trick air ducts to his Fit air filter carbon?[/FONT]
7. D.6.g. What about barge boards less than 30” ahead of the rear rollhoop? Seems to open up possibility of all sorts of aero stuff aimed at the rear wheel. If you are banning barge boards, ban them. Don’t allow them to be sticking up above the diffusers in the rear of FC cars.
8. D.6.k. Kevlar is now allowed in wings? Why? (Kevlar is more expensive than Carbon, so it is not a cost saving deal) What does this buy us?
CRB phone conference may be tonight folks...
http://crbscca.com/
Get out and vote! The deal goes down tonight...
Not a single reference to the syndicate....... Very boring......
Frog has done a lot of research.... I commend his effort to try and thwart this thing....
Its disconcerting to read (my extreme paraphrase) - the car doesn't have the stock tail, put the stock tail on and the can will be legal...... It kills the "experimental" part of this class that makes it appealing - and the fact some "stock" parts don't exist anymore....now the box will be redefined and the hacksaws will come out.....? who knows what was forgotten this time and will come through next year......
I get the impression that everyone.....or "the syndicate"........is willing to "hide" behind the SCCA insurance policy....You are in denial if you think this wasn't to remove Radon. The rest of the story will go the way of Fran-am..... Most unfortunate.... There are a lot of players in this that have surfed through here and not commented at all.... No explanations other than Richards... Hopefully the board has weighed the decision properly....