Oh No, Not Again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Clayton

Maybe the real question we should be asking is where do we want the classes to go? Should we continue to constrain FC with FF's chassis rules? Do we want future FCs to look like this RFR with its ridiculously extended floorpan? Or should we rewrite the FC rules to accommodate the fact that people are now once again doing serious aero development?

---

Stan has hit the nail squarely on the head. The future of FC needs to be discussed and spelled out for all to see.

I would add another subject not mentioned: what is the requirement for tube frame chassis. How far can one go before we decide that the chassis no longer meets some minimum requirement to be called a tube frame. Does the Radon meet that standard or not. If we want hybrid chassis then what are the rules. This question involves FF, FC and FB. If the Radon is the new standard then write that rules to say so.

Also remember that there are 2 groups in this club that have the final say on anything regarding rules, the BOD and the Stewards. If a pro race does not have an empowered SCCA stewards committee then protesting the legality of any car has no consequence beyond the pro event.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carnut169

FA- really needs no help with a Toyota that has to be rebuilt every 2hrs for $100k ;)

---

FA has major engine drama right now.

4 pages in 3 days. are we approaching a record?

Standard :twocents: disclaimers apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

I would add another subject not mentioned: what is the requirement for tube frame chassis. How far can one go before we decide that the chassis no longer meets some minimum requirement to be called a tube frame. Does the Radon meet that standard or not. If we want hybrid chassis then what are the rules. This question involves FF, FC and FB. If the Radon is the new standard then write that rules to say so.

---

If all suspension loads are fed through the tube frame + bulkheads / metallic brackets, and any associated paneling conforms to the 6" fastener center restriction, what reservations do you have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

FA has major engine drama right now.

---

Thanks, CRB and BoD! :thumbsdown:


Cheers,
Rennie

Art, don't ever change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Demeter

4 pages in 3 days. are we approaching a record?

---

Nah, the Fit thread almost broke the internet with one certain person's crazy conspiracy theories.

Man, it sure seems there's a lot of rumbling in the F2000 (FC) camp. Seems like no matter what SCCA Club Racing class you're in, there's an issue. Doesn't look like there will ever be a win/win situation here.

Makes running the Formula 1000 Championship Series look like a breeze.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

This is not a problem now and the decision makers already abstain from something that affects their business or the class they compete in.
It's under "what do you think" because it came out of committee. No big secret.

---

Odd....it seems you have some faith in the process?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Art Smith

assuming<snip>and assuming for a moment:

---

Don't assume Art. You know what can happen. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

The future of FC needs to be discussed and spelled out for all to see.
<snip>
If the Radon is the new standard then write that rules to say so.

---

If the rules of the game haven't changed, neither have the limits...only the extent to which they've been explored.

nice try Jon. But FB is its own cesspool regarding, shifters, which chassis are actually legal and which arent, what defines a stock ECU with piggyback, are the engines stock, ' stock' , are just flat out built, and oh by the way which engines should we allow at all. Every class has its own issues but please dont make it sound like FB is the picture of purity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

Odd....it seems you have some faith in the process?

---

I have some faith in the BOD, that faith has been consistent, even back to the earliest days of the shifter drama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

I would add another subject not mentioned: what is the requirement for tube frame chassis. How far can one go before we decide that the chassis no longer meets some minimum requirement to be called a tube frame. Does the Radon meet that standard or not. If we want hybrid chassis then what are the rules. This question involves FF, FC and FB. If the Radon is the new standard then write that rules to say so.

---

I agree that we should have a more stringent minimum standard for tube frame strength. The Radon meets F3 rollover standards WITHOUT any panels installed. I think some of the existing FC cars would meet those standards without modification, but obviously some of the older cars will not.

I would suggest that all FC cars meet the F3 standard from 2012 on, or at least the older FIA standard in the "alternate design" section of the GCR. That means you immediately have 50-60 lbs of steel in your tube frame and you meet a minimum standard of safety. Whether you choose to add another 30 lbs of stressed aluminum panels (which would give the highest torsional rigidity), 30 lbs of carbon fiber/Kevlar panels, or 30 lbs of steel tubes is up to the designer. Any panels should meet the six inch rule, as they have since 1986. If you want to build a full carbon tub and wrap it around the tube frame, go right ahead. You'll go slower because of the excess weight, but it might look cool. ;)

For the record, if the members of the SCCA think the FF/FC rules need a rewrite I'm glad to help. I think I know the rules about as well as anyone. I'm also willing to make significant compromises, as I've made clear since before the constructor's meeting at the Runoffs last year.

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

Stan has hit the nail squarely on the head. The future of FC needs to be discussed and spelled out for all to see.

I would add another subject not mentioned: what is the requirement for tube frame chassis. How far can one go before we decide that the chassis no longer meets some minimum requirement to be called a tube frame. Does the Radon meet that standard or not. If we want hybrid chassis then what are the rules. This question involves FF, FC and FB. If the Radon is the new standard then write that rules to say so.

Also remember that there are 2 groups in this club that have the final say on anything regarding rules, the BOD and the Stewards. If a pro race does not have an empowered SCCA stewards committee then protesting the legality of any car has no consequence beyond the pro event.

---

I can't take credit for the idea, Steve, it's been suggested many times before...but yes, I agree that we need to have that/those discussion(s).

Having read the proposal numerous times, it really strikes me that since FC and FF chassis have be diverging for about 15 years now, the pressure to do something about it has finally reached the boiling point. Ralph's new design carries the present rules pretty much to their logical conclusion with a "compliance shelf" that doubles as a chin splitter. The Radon accomplishes the same thing, though with its own interpretation. Both are arguably rules-compliant, yet nobody is satisfied with the status quo.

So why not separate FB/C from FF? Let FF continue as pure flat-bottomed cars, with their rules reading something like this: "For the full width of the chassis from the front bulkhead to the main roll-hoop bulkhead (firewall), the lower frame rails and required stressed panel shall form one plane, with an allowable maximum deviation of 5 mm." The wording probably needs some work, but the idea would be to retain the traditional "build it on your garage floor" true flat-bottomed chassis. And keep the current crop of aero prohibitions, of course.

FB/C could adopt less stringent wording...something like: "For the full width of the car from the rear edge of the front tires to the leading edge of the rear tires, the lowest surface of the car shall form one plane, with a maximum vertical deviation of 25.4mm (1")."

That only tackles the aero questions, of course, but it's a start. I see that others have added thoughts, as well, but I am with you, Steve, if we want to do something about the rules, let's do it in a positive manner. Thanks!

Gee Mr. Kevin, sorry if I hit a sore spot? I never said FB was pure and didn't have issues, just that the Formula 1000 Championship Series has it alot easier. Every series is going to have issues. But, we don't have to go through all this democratic BS. Never said we were immune to it, just that we have the ability to set exactly what is legal and what is not and its not open to member votes. The rules are the rules, either like them or don't but its the same for everyone. Our rules are set for 2012 with stability and they're not open for debate. Everyone knows exactly what to expect.

Shifters - open as long as there are not automatic or pre-determined.

Engines - Stock. And that means bone stock.

Chassis - all current chassis are legal. Just maybe not some of the current bodywork.

ECU's - Must be stock ECU, piggybacks and Factory racing ECUs allowed. No after market.

If anyone has a question as to what is legal and what is not and they have a question about our rules, its a one simple phone call or email and they get the answer, plain and simple.

But this is not the thread for FB. I was just making my assessment that club racing in general seems to be having a lot of issues, not just FC. Has it always been this way? For the past 24 years I've always been involved in pro racing (not that there hasn't been issues from time to time there as well), but what I see on this forum is mind boggling to me.

Nathan:

Isn't carbon illegal in that application?. In any event insult noted.

Stan:

How would you deal with the tube frame issue? Or structural elements fastened in a non-structural maner?

Having the belly pan structural was considered a safety issue when it was written into the rules. Maybe we should consider rules that don't require giving up that feature to have a raised nose. Fuel cells that are not protected by a structural belly pan don't impress me as a way to go.

133 post so far, wonder how many letters to the CRB?

[FONT=Calibri]www.crbscca.com[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Back to lurking[/FONT]

No reason to send letters to the CRB yet. These were meeting minutes. Still need to see what actually comes out in Fastrack around the 20th.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamuwere

Worked for me. I really enjoy owning my FE.

---

Works for some people but most do not like paying a premium on parts because they have a fancey enterprise sticker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

I agree that we should have a more stringent minimum standard for tube frame strength. The Radon meets F3 rollover standards WITHOUT any panels installed. I think the Citation would also meet those standards, and maybe even the Van Diemen. The Piper definitely would not, it won't even meet the older FIA standard in the GCR (it uses the "standard" roll cage design in the GCR, which is typically about 20% as strong as the FIA requirement). Not sure about the RFR, it would probably do pretty well in the original configuration with the second stressed floor, but not so well in "legal" configuration.

---

Nathan,

Your constant insults and condescending attitude is getting rather old. We have stayed out of this debate because we have no interest in getting involved in the mud slinging, but at this point something has to be said. Our car, the Piper, is not built to the "standard" roll cage specs as you state. It exceeds the standard SCCA specs. Truth is, you have no idea what specs it meets, because you have no idea what alloys, tube sizes and wall thicknesses we use to construct it. So, please refrain from acting as though you are some kind of expert on any chassis other than a Radon. Last time I checked, a Radon has never been upside down, but Pipers have and they did quite well. We don't go on Apexspeed and brag about it, but we have made numerous changes to our cars over the years to make them as safe as we can.

Nathan, promote your products and image on Apexspeed all you like, but please quit maligning everybody else in the process and making statements as though they are fact when in reality you don't have the necessary information to back them up.

The FF/FC community has been arguing over the same issues with the current rules for well over a year. Let's stop the bickering and finger pointing and make the necessary changes to modernize the rules and remove some of the grey areas. What the FF/FC community needs are clear and concise rules from which cars can be constructed. Why not form a committee a la 1986 and sit down and get something done? This committee could potentially be composed of the manufacturers and some appointed members of the FF/FC community. We would be ready and willing to donate our time and effort to help end this and get on with trying to grow our classes rather than tear them apart.

Doug Learned
Doug Learned Jr.
Fast Forward Components
Piper Race Cars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Clayton

....... it really strikes me that since FC and FF chassis have be diverging for about 15 years now, the pressure to do something about it has finally reached the boiling point. Ralph's new design carries the present rules pretty much to their logical conclusion with a "compliance shelf" that doubles as a chin splitter.

---

Actually, not really. The RFR design ( token floorpan and framework up to the front bulkhead) was first done back in 1991 or so with the EuroSwift, then again in 93-94 with the BRD FC, and lastly with the Stohr FF. With the rules combined as they have been, the frames for both classes have been identical for the major manufacturers (with the usual exceptions for the different engine mounting needs). The RFR chassis would be legal in both FF and FC just as it sits right now.

Doug:

I apologize for singling out the Piper roll hoop and I've edited my post to correct that.

In fact, the material and wall thickness used in your roll hoop does not matter. A single hoop smaller than about 1-7/8" is not capable of resisting the longitudinal force required by the F3 standard. It's a simple statics problem: the bending load is just too high for the moment of inertia provided by a single small tube. That's why FIA approved tube frames have double roll hoops or braces that extend all the way to the top.

I'm glad to see you have adopted a more conciliatory attitude, it is a refreshing change from your private and public attacks on the Radon design over the last year (including during the constructor's meeting at the Runoffs) and your support of this latest rules change proposal. I wonder about the change of heart, but I will take your statement at face value. As I have said repeatedly for more than a year, I am willing and eager to work with anyone interested in compromise.

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

Having the belly pan structural was considered a safety issue when it was written into the rules. Maybe we should consider rules that don't require giving up that feature to have a raised nose. Fuel cells that are not protected by a structural belly pan don't impress me as a way to go.

---

I didn't know the history, but I certainly agree with the intent. A raised nose does not require any compromise in safety. The Rn.10 has a sheet of 16 gage 4130 steel extending from near the top of the main roll hoop down behind the driver's back and all the way to the front bulkhead directly under his legs. It is welded to the frame on its entire perimeter.

I also agree about protecting the fuel cell. In addition to the mandated enclosure we have a 1/8" thick steel plate bolted to the frame (on six-inch centers) under the entire fuel cell and engine bay. It is covered by a solid fiberglass undertray to protect against wear.

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

Actually, not really. The RFR design ( token floorpan and framework up to the front bulkhead) was first done back in 1991 or so with the EuroSwift, then again in 93-94 with the BRD FC, and lastly with the Stohr FF. With the rules combined as they have been, the frames for both classes have been identical for the major manufacturers (with the usual exceptions for the different engine mounting needs). The RFR chassis would be legal in both FF and FC just as it sits right now.

---

My point was that maybe the time has come that they do not have to use the same rules. I don't have a personal preference...I was trying to move the conversation along.

point is Jon , If FC guys wanted less hassle then SCCA they could simply race in the F2000 championship series not change classes.

Leave the advertising out of important threads were class direction is being discussed.

I'm working on 6 hours sleep, so take this for what its worth;

FE has the advantage of being a spec class. Your car will never get obsoleted by the DB-1 of FE cars. But, all the cars look the same, theres never anything new, and you have to pay Enterprize parts markups.

F1 has no limitations, all the cars are different, the smart developers and engineers all want to play. But, the cars are all obsolete in 1 year, or 1 race for some, You can't keep up, and you need the budget of a drug cartel to play.

We live in the grey zone; Obsolesence is always a risk. No matter how you write the rules, someone, sooner or later, will one-up what has been done before. It is the cost of progress, and if you want to avoid that, you move to a spec class. That is why they exist. Recognizing that, it's not surprizing that a car like the Radon has come along, and the reaction of those affected is hardly surprizing either. Again, it is part of the price of playing in a non-spec class.

To move forward from here is the challenge. A single car is unlikely to do major harm to the class. I know, everyone is jumping to point at my car, but the DB-1 didn't kill FF. The DB-1, Spec racer, and the explosion of alternative classes, together, did a lot of damage, but if you took out the SRF and other options, I think the DB-1 would have been a temporary set back. Either way, I don't see how you can retroactively outlaw a car that has been judged legal without running off every manufacturer who might be interested in your class, and discouraging competitors from buying new cars. I surely wouldn't buy a new car in a class where they might outlaw the car next year.

The best solution [IMHO] appears to be to have a committee of scrutineers, builders and knowledgable drivers come up with a set of rules that they feel will be best to serve and grow the class, then present those rules to the current participants of the class. If what Radon has done is judged bad for the class, outlaw it going forward, but grandfather in the cars currently ordered. It just seems to be the fair way of doing things. In the end, if the class is felt to unfairly treat builders and buyers, it will hurt the class. Certainly the carping on this thread isn't doing the class a lot of good, and it isn't solving the problem.

As a disclaimer, I've talked to Doug and Steve, who both have freely given me advice, and I like them. I have never actually met either of them, and I have never even talked to Nathan. If I have a bias, it would not be towards the Radon team, as I don't know them. So hopefully, this is an unbiased view. Take it for what it is worth.

[FONT=Verdana]Jim well said ! [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Thankfully this is not a SPEC class ! Just because the RADON is a nice car and it IS,( but not UNIQUE in being engineered) ...doesn’t mean it will kill the class! There WILL be another.. just sayin. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]There are plenty of SPEC classes that will gladly accept your business. FC is not one of them! [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Really does EVERYONE want spec everything ? I know I do not !! and I know at least 2 other folks that don’t either. [/FONT]

Does anyone here have a rough estimate as the cost of a rolling chassis, brand new, from each of the manufacturers who currently makes new chassis?

What I'm getting at is all you're doing here is having a bitch session. You all know what you have to do here. Write a well composed letter to the CRB & BOD and state your position clearly. That's the only way you're really going to get your point across. I'm sure that they could care less what goes on in this forum.

To dispel this myth about paying a markup to Enterprises. I don't see it and haven't seen it in reality.

A bare upright from Primus for a late model Van Diemen is the same as the cost for an FE car. The big difference is there isn't a used parts marketplace for FE as we have for most every car out there in FC/FF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cooleyjb

To dispel this myth about paying a markup to Enterprises. I don't see it and haven't seen it in reality.

A bare upright from Primus for a late model Van Diemen is the same as the cost for an FE car. The big difference is there isn't a used parts marketplace for FE as we have for most every car out there in FC/FF.

---

You're kidding right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Livengood

You're kidding right?

---

Looked at the numbers on the Primus website and looked at the numbers I have from enterprises.

Primus late model VD upright was 499 IIRC and the Enterprises upright was 475. I'm sure we could go through and find some that are more from Enterprises but I'd bet that there are a number of things that are more expensive from VD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cooleyjb

Looked at the numbers on the Primus website and looked at the numbers I have from enterprises.

Primus late model VD upright was 499 IIRC and the Enterprises upright was 475. I'm sure we could go through and find some that are more from Enterprises but I'd bet that there are a number of things that are more expensive from VD

---

Okay, but this thread isn't about just VD's is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Livengood

Okay, but this thread isn't about just VD's is it?

---

No but, might as well compare apples to apples and use VD parts that aren't touched by enterprises and the FE parts which are VD parts. So feel free to prove me wrong but FE vs. Late model VD just doesn't have this difference that people have been talking about so why let this 'myth' continue. I've provided evidence of this.

That price doesn't seem right, the original cast Van Diemen part can't cost more than $100 to produce. Maybe the exchange rate with the British pound is part of the problem?

The Radon uprights (machined from billet 7075-T6 aluminum) currently retail for $425 each. I hope to get that under $350 as volume increases.

I'm sure the Citation uprights are more reasonably priced as well.

Nathan

The fact that I ran inside the top ten with a car that we bought for $18 grand, with a plethora of spares i might add, is proof enough.

You can't do an engine change for half of what our car cost through Enterprises, even if you do the work yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cooleyjb

No but, might as well compare apples to apples and use VD parts that aren't touched by enterprises and the FE parts which are VD parts. So feel free to prove me wrong but FE vs. Late model VD just doesn't have this difference that people have been talking about so why let this 'myth' continue. I've provided evidence of this.

---

The real problem is you have to go to enterprises for the parts. You can buy knock off VD uprights and put them on four FF/FC but not on a FE. You can buy replacement parts from numerous suppliers except for the FE. Maybe because I never had a VD until I bought a FE, but the cost of the parts in comparision to what the same parts cost for my Swifts is way more.

Now back to your regularly scheduled bashing and biotchin.
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Livengood

The fact that I ran inside the top ten with a car that we bought for $18 grand, with a plethora of spares i might add, is proof enough.

You can't do an engine change for half of what our car cost through Enterprises, even if you do the work yourself.

---

Engine is 5500 I believe for an FE? Same basic lifespan as a Zetec. My last pinto refresh was ballpark 4K and while it was pretty darn close to a Coello engine it still had about 3-4000 bucks to go to get there.

All that's very interesting, guys. Might even be worth a thread of its own. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cooleyjb

Primus late model VD upright was 499 IIRC and the Enterprises upright was 475.

---

Quote:

---

That price doesn't seem right, the original cast Van Diemen part can't cost more than $100 to produce.

---

Not surprising at all - Van Dieman is going to (1) sell at around whatever the long established market price is for lower class uprights; and (2) Have enough margin to give a reasonable discount to an importer.

The FE upright is probably bought in larger quantities than Primus does for the "regular" VD uprights, and/or working at a smaller margin.

And yes, the fluctuating pound doesn't help at all.

Maybe that is why Enterprises is in the hole every year, and the club keeps pouring money (MILLIONS over the years)in to keep them afloat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveB

Maybe that is why Enterprises is in the hole every year, and the club keeps pouring money (MILLIONS over the years)in to keep them afloat.

---

Dave, Enterprises did borrow lots of money from SCCA over the years, but for the past decade or so has not only been paying back principal and interest on those loans, but been paying a hundred-thou or so of operating profit a year into the Club's general fund. It is a very well run company that is more than pulling its weight. Give Erik a call to get the particulars...he'll be happy to fill you in. Stan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cooleyjb

To dispel this myth about paying a markup to Enterprises. I don't see it and haven't seen it in reality.

A bare upright from Primus for a late model Van Diemen is the same as the cost for an FE car. The big difference is there isn't a used parts marketplace for FE as we have for most every car out there in FC/FF.

---

The difference between spec racers and formuila car racers is at least equal to the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Even though we speak the same language we can hardly communicate.

I think that all FC guys should consider FE has having poached a market that was created by FC in the first place. Again, we only speak the same language. But I am demented in my belief that the only true racers would want to drive FCs. I have also had to deal with the deficiencies of drivers who have advanced from spec classes to classes where there are much greater demands on a driver's ability to setup a car.

Seriously, FE and FC may look similar but the mentality of the participants couldn't be further apart. Both classes serve there adherents well, but you should not draw any comparisons between them. For someone who just wants to go to the track and blast around and have fun, you can't beat an FE.