Printable View
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 ?
As again as a outsider, with out a penny in this bun fight (It does have international flow on) I think thats where he has gone wrong, even at 6 inch spacings there is still a lot of strength to the frame/tube chassis, it does put the class on notice, IMHO its out, good try, but back to the drawing board Nathan, I don't think anybody could belittle the effort and thought and thats what its all about, but also one must look at the intent of the rules as well, it that its often its not what or what is written, its the intent of the rules( this is where lawyers make mega bucks) I think that the class has many improvements to be made, I can't think of any off hand ( I would be indeed a richer man if I could) but people like Nathan are needed to push, I do think think his mistake is make so many before one is legal is a bad business mistake, BWTH, I do think he is on the right track, but maybe a bridge to far?
Roger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stohr
but also one must look at the intent of the rules as well, it that its often its not what or what is written
Are you kidding, how about we forget this "intent" nonsense.
How about we just go by the existing rules, period. Let the Radon stand or fall on it's merits as built by the existing rules.
We've already heard a lot of varied interpretations of "intent" and that's pretty subjective depending on who's intent your talking about....
It's extremely well documented that the rules have evolved over the years to meet new technologies and safety issues as well. Simply pick up a late 70's GCR and compare it to GCR 2009.
How about tossing data devices, taller roll hoops, six point harnesses with anti-sub belts, modern tire compounds, god forbid "carbon" Hans devices. One might argue this stuff didn't even exist when the class started, so where was the "intent" to allow for these items? We could drive the cars without them and did!
To use a rules change to bury what well may be a much safer car with a simple method of construction that does not cost considerably more is insane.
Dennis,
These guys opposing the chassis would be much better off if they joined politics. So far, they have done a brilliant job of denying certain things - a skill that can be an asset in politics!
The clever thing about this 'intent' thing is that you can use it anytime you want. You write a rule and some one comes up with a design which you would'nt like just because you did'nt think of it first - you'll simple say that's against the 'intent' of the rules. Right, fair enough, and the rules gets re-written classed as 'clarification'..
Moving on, that part, say, gets banned or is modified to be in line with the 'new rules' which reflects the 'intent' this time, and what may happen again is that the same people may find something else on the car that they did'nt think of before, so guess what, the 'intent' scenario starts all over again. Something like, OH, BTW, that is against the 'intent' as well, lets do another 'clarification'.
Basically, it is load of bull****. What else can I say.
People not living in a state of denial can clearly see this in black and white.
As a designer I believe that "intent" is pretty much a meaningless word. The rules are written & they are the guidelines that any designer must adhere to. However the CRB often makes rulings and clarifications that are based on what THEY think "intent" is. I know this for a fact as I designed a car that was completely legal in every respect but the rules were then changed such that we could not race the car anymore. BTW we had a 9 day notice from when the ruling was posted to when it went into effect at the beggining of the 2006 season.
That said, I was not offended by the CRBs ruling & never said another word about it until my earlier posting on this forum. My purpose with bringing it up is to simply show that the SCCA will do what they think is necessary & can & will use "intent" if they think it is appropriate.
I also am not concerned by the use of structural panels that are bolted to the chassis at 6" centers. On this particular issue the use of the carbon materials itself is in my opinion a minor issue that could be solved by changing to other materials or clarified by the CRB. Not a big hitter IMHO.
I do think that there are other design issues that may cross the legality line but since I have not actually seen the car I am unable to form a solid opinion based soley on the pictures and the discussions on this forum.
BTW I have a very high regard for designers who stretch the limits.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
The cockpit protection panels provide no competitive advantage. They don't make the car faster or stiffer than a car like the Citation, they simply make it much safer and less expensive to manufacture.
If the concern is escalation, then I have already expressed my willingness to work with the CRB and any other constructor to draft a modification to the rules to prevent that. I believe it would only require two phrases to be added to the 2010 rules, not the biggest rules change since 1986.
Some people think there is a mysterious "intent" in the rules going back to 1985, and that every constructor has been aware of a shadow set of rules that require all FF/FC cars be built the same way. If that is the case, the CRB wasn't aware of it, nor were the dozen experienced formula car racers that I consulted during the design of this car, some of whom were racing in 1985.
If the majority of the members of the SCCA believe our car is bad for the club, then they have the right to change the rules to ban it.
Nathan
Everyone continues to dance around the minutia and details, and no one on either side of this debate has provided FULL DISCLOSURE of all of the concepts, thoughts and issues. There are people that are members of this forum who are integral components of all sides of the issue, and yet they have not participated in this discussion at all.
I've been told many things by both sides—off line, in PMs and via e-mail, and yet many of those details gathered from different parties have yet to be expressed or exposed here on the forums.
There is a lot of information on both sides of this ordeal that is not visible to the forum discussion,. Until that is all out in front of you, as an SCCA member, you cannot make an intelligent decision on this subject. And just because someone here says it is so either way, you don't have any idea what their connection is to the rule makers/proposers, or to the Radon or RFR companies.
There are many layers to this whole thing and you can't just say, "bring the car and let's race." It's not 1960... it's doesn't work that way anymore.
Doug,Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. I think that we have been pretty straightforward in explaining the new design of the Radon, and what our goals have been in designing and building the new car. Is there still some controversial aspect of the car that we haven't explained?
What I think is happenening is that some of those "details" are out and out made up, or are based on photos taken of a partial chassis in impending darkness. It's like taking comments out of context.
Most (I think I could venture to say al") companies, no matter what they're building, do not generall share all of the aspects of their design with the public or their competition prior to releasing their new product. So for us to keep the initial aspects of our design to ourselves is nothing more than following good business practice. At this point, I think we've been open and honest about our new design.
So - what haven't we told you?
Cheers,
Chris C.
"intent nonesense?"
EVERY, I REPEAT EVERY rule out there has an "intent".
this is probably a poor example but i think you'll get the point.
the f2000 rulebook says that head and neck restraints are to be used by all competing drivers.
it doesn't actually say that the tethers have to be attached. but i would fully expect that if i showed up on the grid with them unattached, i would be told to attach them. and the reasoning would be that the word "used" implies that it be employed in the fashion the designer intended. now, they could rewrite the rule to read that head and neck restraints are to be worn in the fashion that the device's designers intend, but is that really necessary? isn't the "intent" already clear. because if your answer is no, that intent doesn't matter, then you better be ready for a FC rulebook that is as big as the GCR itself.
again, probably a poor example...
the greatest line i've read in this whole thread was the one by mike foschi about not needing a rules revision, just for the SCCA to act like the adult in the room and say NO,
mark d
president "mark defer's club of limited intelligence"
This has been done before. Here are a couple pictures of an '85 Reynard FF that used "non-structure" aluminum honeycomb panels. Given the lack of tubing behind the panels I would say there was an expectation the panels would provide some structure. The panels were held on with 10-32's, with the lower 3 going through the lower square frame tube where as the upper 3 used tabs.
When I had the car a couple of the tabs broke. Cracks developed in the upper frame tubes directly behind the panels which might indicate that they were provibing some structure, just not the right way (I am not an engineer).
The car was ultimately not very successful and I don't think the panels were used for very long. It's the same general approach as the one discussed here but with different materials and poorly executed.
Food for thought.
Jim
those reynard panels were used in both '85 and '86. i had one of each. they were true anti-intrusion panels.
differences between those and the radon's panels
material used
size of panels
interior rather than exterior.
nothing was "hung" on them.
mark d
president MDCLI