Radon photos

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

Just to recap - what is it exactly that Radon did wrong? Carbon anti-intrusion panels on the outside of the frame ?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Carter

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,

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

Talk about a bad example from Mr. I forgot to attach my Hans.

Vice. President
MDCLI

B.1. Chassis
[FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers]The chassis shall be of tubular steel construction with no stress-bearing panels except bulkhead and undertray; ... The use of composite materials using carbon and/or Kevlar reinforcement is prohibited[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers]The above is copied from the current GCR.[/FONT]


[FONT=Univers,Univers]I think that understanding these 2 sentences[/FONT][FONT=Univers,Univers] is the whole point of all the posts in this thread. The last sentence was largely authored by David Bruns (Swift DB1 designer) at the conference which led to the 1986 rules for formula Ford chassis construction. Because I was at the table, I guess that I have been too close to the rules to see that there might be another interpretation that on first glance seems to violate this provision of the rules but is perfectly valid.[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers,Univers]Doug;[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers,Univers]Does this help?[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark defer

"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"

---

Well said. I agree completely. Every class was born with an intent. It's true that intent in one person's mind can be different than another, but to totally disregard intent from a car class rules discussion doesn't make sense.

It is the rules makers' job of making sure the written rules restrict cars to stay within the scope of the class' intent. They always try to be as perfect as possible, but it's impossible to anticipate every possible interpretation or future technology or method.

Yes, designers are expected to push the limits of the written rules. They must be willing to accept the risk of unconventional ideas being ruled out via "clarifications"..

PS. I don't know enough about the new chassis to form an opinion about their legality. As Doug points out, very few of us on Apexspeed have enough information to "know" who is right and wrong. Anyone who thinks they might be adversely affected by the outcome should do due diligence to learn more about it then make your views known to SCCA decision makers.

Personally, my FF/FC racing is done with a low budget and far away from the pointy end, so I doubt I'll be affected significantly.

Thanks for the history. I was not at that meeting.
It almost sounds like David Bruns was allowed to re-write the FF chassis rules to include his illegal car, which forced everyone to sell their old, now valueless, uncompetitive cars. Which eventually led to the creation of Club Ford, since all cars prior to the Swift couldn't compete after the rules change.
Maybe you should let Nathan re-write the rules this time ?

So Mark...

You are saying the 85-86 Reynard panels were legal because:

a. They really didn't work.
b. If hit from the outside, they would instantly break loose, and transfer the force to the driver's body.
c. They caused the frame to crack.
d. The cars were so uncompetitive that other competetors didn't have the heart to protest the fools that bought them.
e. you owned one and everybody knew if they protested you, hell would be paid.
f. all of the above

ed. note: please, please, please this post was only meant as humor. no more hate mail.

Steve:

Please include the whole section:

Quote:

---

B.1. Chassis
The chassis shall be of tubular steel construction with no stress‑bearing panels except bulkhead and undertray; curvature of the undertray shall not exceed 2.54cm (1 inch). Monocoque chassis construction is prohibited. Stress bearing panels are defined as: sheet metal affixed to the frame by welding, bonding, rivets, bolts, or screws which have centers closer than 15.24cm (6 inches). Body panels cannot be utilized as stress bearing panels, except as required for 1986 construction rules. The use of composite materials using carbon and/or Kevlar reinforcement is prohibited.

---

How do you limit the definition of "chassis?" If you include anything attached to the frame or anything that serves a structural purpose, then every modern FC car (including the latest Citations) are illegal, since they have bell housings which violate the prohibition against stress bearing panels.

You can't apply one sentence of this section to our car and not apply another sentence to other cars.

Our cockpit protection panels are not part of the chassis, clearly, in the way the GCR has been interpreted for many years. They are brackets and cockpit interior panels in clear compliance with the 2010 rules.

This is all moot, though, since we'd abide by the decision of a Court of Appeals on any protest under the 2010 rules. We would also support a modification of the 2010 rules to clarify the extent to which cockpit protection panels can be structural. What we oppose is the most significant rewrite of the rules since 1986, the intent of which is simply to make our car illegal.

Nathan

frog,
who the hell let you back in the buckeye state?
i got word that you snuck in down near cincinnati a few hours ago.
i was just noting the differences in the panels, not drawing conclusions.
why don't you and dave discuss it over dinner. what's sherrie having?

mark d

Mark,
I'm here for the inaugural meeting of the MDCLI club in Bath Ohio. Being you are the self proclaimed president of said club, i thought you surely would have gotten an invite. I guess it's a secret meeting in which we can vote you out, just like they do in other clubs, i've heard.

Be careful, from my campsite at Tinkers Creek State Park, i can shoot your business windows out from the roof of my RV. I've been sent up to spy on your activities. Now that you are back to posting on Apexspeed, you are considered a threat to homeland security. ;)

OBTW, this weekend, i'll be on the grid... looking for tethers. :):o

Is there any way we can fire the members of the CRB?

The fact they they are even putting us through all this should be enough....

....and if they are volunteers is there any way we can un-volunteer them?



...just asking....


I mean, what if all our letters to the CRB just said "You're Fired, Get Lost!"


......would that be enough?

The border guards were fooled by the fact that Mrs. frog was driving and Mike was hiding under the seats.;)

Frog/Defer
Just because I am not in attendance I will not tolerate expulsion from the MDCLI. I believe my years of participation have earned me a position as a founding member. I expect you both to represent my interests at the year end function.;)

OBTW time to quit kicking this "clarification dog' we all pretty much know what is up and everyone has their opinion. Comment to club see what happens and move on in one direction or another.:mad:

I suspect that a major concern of many of the participants of this forum is that the new Radon is or may be easily considered to be a semi-monocoque chassis. It is clearly the stated "intent" of the rules that FC cars are constructed as a tubular frame. From the pics I have seen I very much suspect that the Radon is a "semi-monocoque" chassis & I imagine that there will have to be some sort of a formal process to determine if it is legal.

I would be very curious to know what the torsional stiffness of the chassis is with & without all the structural panels.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

Jay:

At the risk of repeating myself, here is what the GCR says:

Quote:

---

Monocoque – A frameless construction in which the main structure of a car is composed of a permanent assembly of panels to which the running gear, suspension and body are attached.

---

The Rn.10 has a substantial frame, the panels don't comprise the main structure, the panels are not permanent (they can easily be removed), and neither the running gear nor the suspension are attached to them. The body is attached to the panels in a few places, but notice the wording above "and body" not "or body."

The Rn.10 therefore doesn't meet any of the four conditions required to meet the definition of monocoque in the GCR.

I also don't see any reference to torsional rigidity or any limitations on chassis stiffening in the GCR. The panels do stiffen the chassis, but the car is not any stiffer than, say, a Citation.

I'd be glad to see what a Court of Appeals would say, but if they succeed in changing the rules to ban the car for 2011 we'll never know.

Nathan

Nathan, my comment on torsional rigidity has nothing to do with the rules. As I said I was curious.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

Nathan:

There is a prize in many of these situations.

Just as Jay can point to rules he generated in the GCR and I can point to several that I caused, you may get to join a verry exclusive club. There is a price or reward to being ahead of your time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt M.

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.
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:

---

My adult responce is:
Sorry, I had an issue. I'll try to do a better job in the future. Thanks for pointing this out to me.

My 3rd grade responce(to bring it almost down to your level):
I got your font right here! Everyone nose that a 30" LCD is not big enough for you. You have to stay too far from the monitor because of that thing in front of your face. Dude, that's not actually your nose is it?

OBTW, Pinnochio called and he wants his helmet back that you had to borrow.

(Sorry Doug, but he started it)

Steve:

Not sure I want that prize! ;)

Seriously, my hope is that I can contribute to a true rules clarification (not the wholesale change proposed in the September Fastrack) that continues to allow innovation in the class. I'm also hopeful we can improve safety, but without making any existing car obsolete.

Regards,

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

Steve:

Not sure I want that prize! ;)

Seriously, my hope is that I can contribute to a true rules clarification (not the wholesale change proposed in the September Fastrack) that continues to allow innovation in the class. I'm also hopeful we can improve safety, but without making any existing car obsolete.

Regards,

Nathan

---

Pretty much what I told the CRB and that comes from a SCCA member who races elsewhere who is an '88 Reynard FC owner that bought it partially because of it's front bulkhead and the safety (even if only perceived :rolleyes:) it offers. SCCA just makes it to dang difficult to go play with them, this is a prime example of one of the many levels a potential owner/driver has to deal with that just takes the fun out of racing.

Mike ~ I'm glad you still remember my face anyway.... I heard I hurt your feelings.....

[FONT=Verdana]The New England Boss wanted me to apologize in some way - He said I was insulting and perhaps "over zealous" (my word, not his) He made me stand on a sheet of plastic crying until I agreed to make things right.........so if I can come down to the island - just let me know. Maybe bring down some clam chowder and take you for an ice... You like Tennis??[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial Bold MT (GAKERO)][FONT=Arial Bold MT (GAKERO)][FONT=Arial Bold MT (GAKERO)]I have been involved in Formula Ford since the 1986 construction requirements came into effect and the 86 construction rules have always read as below.Somehow in the 2010 GCR the second sentence is missing which is[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial Bold MT (GAKERO)][FONT=Arial Bold MT (GAKERO)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]Stabilized (honeycomb) or composite (carbon fiber or Kevlar) materials are not permitted, except as specifcally authorized within these rules.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial Bold MT (GAKERO)][FONT=Arial Bold MT (GAKERO)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]I have looked back at all my fastracks since this sentence was left out and have found that the rule has never been changed to allow composite materials.So it is still a rule until such a time that it is changed through the proper procedure even if it was left out of the 2010 GCR.So carbon Fiber and kevlar are not permitted except as specifically authorized in the 86 rules.The only composite that was authorized is kevlar in the area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the front roll hoop bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. So carbon fiber is illegal under the 86 construction requirements which are still in effect.Also the 86 rules didn't allow for brackets to be made from anything but metal.They allowed them to be nonferrous. Nonferrous is metal without iron content such as aluminum and magnesium not carbon fiber.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]



[FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]Formula Ford 1986 construction requirements as of January 1, 1986. All new Formula Ford cars are to be built to these specifcations. (Required for Formula 2000 also.) [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]The chassis shall be of steel space frame construction. Monocoque-type structures are prohibited. Stabilized (honeycomb) or composite (carbon fber or Kevlar) materials are not permitted, except as specifcally authorized within these rules. The frame shall incorporate a roll cage per Section 18., (revised January 1, 1984). Forward-facing braces protecting the driver’s legs and feet shall extend from the front roll hoop to the front bulkhead. (The front bulkhead is defned as the furthest forward transverse section of the main frame.) The soles of the driver’s feet shall not extend beyond the front edge of the wheel rims (in normal position; i.e., pedals not depressed) and shall remain behind the front bulkhead. The lower main frame rails shall be a minimum of twenty-fve (25) centimeters (9.84") apart (inside dimension) from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]There shall be a crushable structure, securely attached to the front bulkhead, with a minimum cross section of 200 sq. cm (31 sq. in.), 40cm (15.75") forward of the clutch and brake pedals (not depressed)constructed [/FONT][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]of a minimum of eighteen (18) gauge 6061-T4 or equivalent aluminum. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]Radiators may be incorporated in this structure.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]The area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the front roll hoop bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead shall be protected by one of the following methods to prevent the intrusion of objects into the cockpit.[/FONT]

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]Panel(s), minimum of either .060" heat treated aluminum (6061-T6 or equivalent) or eighteen (18) gauge steel, attached outside of the main frame tubes.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]Reinforced body - at minimum, consisting [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]of a double layer, five (5) oz., bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than six (6) inch centers (no stress-bearing panels). The material used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]A stress-bearing floor pan/undertray, minimum of .060" heat treated aluminum or eighteen (18) gauge steel, is required from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. Its curvature shall not exceed one inch. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]Sheet materials attached to the frame by welding, bonding, or by rivets or threaded fasteners which are located closer than six (6) inch centers, are defned as stress-bearing panels. Composite or stabilized materials shall not be used for stress-bearing panels. The mountings for brake and clutch pedals and cylinders (front bulkhead), instruments, (front roll hoop bulkhead), and rear roll hoop bulkhead (behind the driver) may also be stress-bearing panels. No other stress-bearing panels are permitted.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]The firewall portion of the rear roll hoop bulkhead (panel) shall extend the full width of the cockpit and be at least equal to the top of the carburetor in vertical height. Forward facing air ducts may be installed for the purpose of delivering air directly to the engine area. Air duct openings may be located within the cockpit provided the frewall is extended to prevent fame and debris from reaching the driver. (Any shape may be used to form frewall extension.) All firewall inlets shall prohibit passage of fame and debris.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]Brackets mounting components such as the engine,suspension pickups,[FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]instruments,[FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]clutch and brake components, and [FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]body panels may be nonferrous, of any shape, and [FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]fastened to the frame in any manner.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
　
　
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Says "may be nonferrous" not "shall be nonferrous"

Nathan,
You're not catching on - the days of Colin Chapman are over.

But if it was up to me, I'd approve your design.

John:

The rules were extensively changed in 2010. The proposal was published in Fastrack in 2009, modified based on member feedback and approved by the Board of Directors. The 2010 rules are in effect, any previous version does not apply.

The GCR does not say "non-ferrous" METAL, it says non-ferrous, which means not ferrous. And, a small point, it is "non-ferrous" (not "nonferrous"), which makes it even more clear that they do not refer to nonferrous metal. Surely you are not suggesting that plastic brackets are illegal? There are a lot of those out there!

Regards,

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

John:

The rules were extensively changed in 2010. The proposal was published in Fastrack in 2009, modified based on member feedback and approved by the Board of Directors. The 2010 rules are in effect, any previous version does not apply.

The GCR does not say "non-ferrous" METAL, it says non-ferrous, which means not ferrous. And, a small point, it is "non-ferrous" (not "nonferrous"), which makes it even more clear that they do not refer to nonferrous metal. Surely you are not suggesting that plastic brackets are illegal? There are a lot of those out there!

Regards,

Nathan

---

Nathan,

I think if you use the:
"the giant sheet of carbon fiber with special filling, that bolts to the frame, that stiffens the frame, but not stiffer then a Citition frame, and if you don't pass it F2000 & FC is surely doomed, and Hazelnut says were all really good people, and I don't want to make a car that's faster then any other car because I'm satisfied with making mine mediocre at best, I'm only in it for safty and the cost of it all, and I dont know what to tell the guys that sold thier cars to buy this one, is a bracket" defense, you'll be in big trouble.

I hope this helps.

I suspect that "carbon brackets" that are the size of the entire side of the passenger bay of the "frame", a "frame" that has nearly zero tubular triangulation or cross braces in any individual bay, along with a "carbon bracket" that forms the top of the foot box and also serves as a cross brace for the rocker bosses, are not "brackets". (wow that is a long sentence)

These "carbon brackets" are, IMHO, an obvious attempt to circumvent the rule requireing a steel tubular frame. There is zero doubt that the very clear intent of the rules that a total steel tubular structure is required.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

I find it interesting that what everyone seems to be picking on about our car is those carbon panels.

I'm not quite sure why.

The carbon panels do not add more structural rigidity to the chassis then all of the welded tubes that you think we should have used. Our chassis is not structurally stiffer than a Van Diemen or a Citation, and if you do the math, the loads aren't that high, anyway.

What the carbon panels DO do is to make it MUCH safer for the driver while maintaining acceptable structural stiffness, and they are cheaper to manufacture then welding in all of those tubes. They don't add one iota of performance over the "acceptable" methods of construction.

When we race our car, and IF (and that's a capital IF) it does turn out to be faster, it's NOT going to be because of those carbon panels of which everyone seems to be afraid.

It IS going to be because we used state-of-the-art suspension modeling software to design and model the suspension and its geometry. The software alone cost several thousand dollars, and we have consulted with engineers with F1 and IndyCar experience in order to maximize the tires' grip.

It IS going to be because we modeled every square inch of bodywork and analyzed the airflow over the car using computerized fluid dynamics software with millions of mesh points and very high powered processors, in order to minimize drag and maximize downforce.

It IS going to be because we minimized unsprung weight by redesigning the uprights and suspension components using FEA analysis techniques in order to make them many pounds lighter, yet even stronger, than the ones on your existing car.

Are you going to tell us that we shouldn't have done those things, either? Perhaps doing one's homework in order to make a better, faster, and safer car is not within the "spirit" of the rules?

As we've said before, we maintain that our carbon panels are legal within the 2010 rules. They don't add to performance, they add considerably to safety, and they make it cheaper to build and repair the car.

Cheers,

Chris C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Mosteller

[FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)][FONT=Arial Bold MT (GAKERO)][FONT=Arial Bold MT (GAKERO)][FONT=Arial MT (IQEQTK)]Stabilized (honeycomb) or composite (carbon fiber or Kevlar) materials are not permitted, except as specifcally authorized within these rules.

So carbon fiber is illegal under the 86 construction requirements which are still in effect

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

---

Except you're ignoring the fact interior panels, mirrors, intakes, etc may be carbon fiber as they are specifically authorized later in the rules and protest at the runoffs has upheld this position.

This really has gone on far too long. Chris, why don't you and Nathan just submit your pic's and request homologation NOW. You've got more than enough info, so instead of continuing the "Yes it is, no it isn't" crap, get on with the process and PROVE that it is in compliance.

If you get a homologation certificate, you'll at least be that much farther. I would, however, expect to be protested, too...but at least you'll have completed Step #1. This bantering back and forth isn't accomplishing anything at this point, other than factionalizing the community. The real decision will be made elsewhere, so our comments and straw polls are meaningless.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camadella

I find it interesting that what everyone seems to be picking on about our car is those carbon panels.

I'm not quite sure why.

---

Because they're made of carbon and you're calling them brackets when everyone knows what they're really for - pretty grade school if you ask me.

I can tell you this - the ZSports camp is a house divided. I love the fact that someone read the rules, poured their time and sweat and $$ into this project and came up with another (not necessarily better, but another) moustrap. My buddy Steve is like Defer and others re: "intent" and is 100% against it.

The fact that B.1 prohibits carbon or kevlar puts me solidly in the camp that this should not be legal. Just make the damn panels out of something that is neither carbon fiber or kevlar and to me (whatever that's worth) it would meet the letter of rules.

Nice work - you guys should be commended. BTW - I'm digging the push rods. I'm assuming the fronts are shim adjustable - are the rears as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron B.

Nice work - you guys should be commended. BTW - I'm digging the push rods. I'm assuming the fronts are shim adjustable - are the rears as well?

---

Hi Ron:

Thanks! The front pushrods are shim adjustable.

The rear suspension has pullrods, and ride height is adjusted using the conventional "turnbuckle" approach. I would have preferred shim adjustment, but I wasn't comfortable doing that for something under tension.

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Foschi

Hazelnut says were all really good people

---

It's not just me. Most everyone here knows the guys who've put out venture capital to get this car rolling, and most everyone agrees they they are good people who love racing and just want to make it better and are willing to spend their own money (which even if this thing IS legal, they'll NEVER get back; sorry guys but you knew it!) and put in a crapload of time and effort, to do so.


BTW if fastmatt brings chowder I'm in for a bowl. I'll call the fatboys and we'll have a soiree down on the south shore. We promise that we'll put on a few gallons of cologne, some gold chains, and drive down in matching IROCs. :D

The whole bracket thing bugs me, and although I hate to admit it sometimes, Thomson via email prompte me to look into this further:

From Nathan's post a long time ago....

And also meet the definition of bracket in D.7.d:

Quote:
Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels, may be non-ferrous, of any shape, and attached to the frame in any manner.

Nathan

From the GCR Technical Glossary:

[FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]Ferrous – [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]An alloy containing more than 50% iron[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Do you really think that non-ferrous means anything other than "an alloy that contains less than 50% iron"? I doubt anyone in any court would win an arguement otherwise, nor would they reasonably consider CF or Kevlar an "alloy". A quick check on the interweb (I know, it wouldn't stand up in court, but I bet an SAE or ASME definition would) shows this. This is precisely why a bellhousing is allowed as a bracket and CF panels shouldn't be. [/FONT][/FONT]

Like I said before - make them out of something other than CF, don't call them brackets and go racing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HazelNut

It's not just me. Most everyone here knows the guys who've put out venture capital to get this car rolling, and most everyone agrees they they are good people who love racing and just want to make it better and are willing to spend their own money (which even if this thing IS legal, they'll NEVER get back; sorry guys but you knew it!) and put in a crapload of time and effort, to do so.


BTW if fastmatt brings chowder I'm in for a bowl. I'll call the fatboys and we'll have a soiree down on the south shore. We promise that we'll put on a few gallons of cologne, some gold chains, and drive down in matching IROCs. :D

---

And who are these investors? Why so hush hush? Come on spill your guts.

Hi Ron:

I've heard of some bizarre interpretations of the GCR being circulated via private messages and emails, thanks for posting this particular private communication so I can defend our design! (And I don't think this particular interpretation is "bizarre," just incorrect).

If the language in the GCR said "non-ferrous metal" or, better yet, "nonferrous metal alloy" then I would agree it would exclude composite materials. It doesn't, it says "non-ferrous" with a hyphen. The most direct and logical interpretation of that is "not ferrous" and therefore anything that doesn't contain at least 50% iron. The simple explanation is that brackets don't have to be steel, which is an interpretation that has been used to construct very complex assemblies of aluminum panels that are "brackets" for the transmission (otherwise known as bell housings). That is how constructors have avoided the prohibition against stressed-skin construction in section B.1 (and elsewhere) in the GCR to allow monocoque assembled bell housings.

I agree those brackets are much more than a single part used for attachment (the conventional idea of a bracket) but that's how the GCR has been interpreted, so that same interpretation applies to our cockpit protection panels, which are much simpler than a multi-part bolted-together bell housing like used in the latest Citation. I suspect that's why the proposed new rules remove the prohibition against stressed-skin construction (they scratched out the six inch rule and the rule prohibiting monocoque structures).

If you search on the web, you can find many definitions of "nonferrous" (without a hyphen). I've been designing and machining mechanical parts for 25 years, and I have never heard anyone limit "nonferrous" to metal alloys. In fact, many cutting guidelines for end mills and drills include plastics in their definition of "nonferrous."

If they meant to only allow aluminum or magnesium they could have used the term "light alloy." Of course that would exclude people from making brackets out of plastic, which I've seen on many cars.

And, even with all this, our panels don't even need to meet the definition of bracket to be legal. They are also clearly legal as cockpit interior panels--they are inside the cockpit, not licked by the airstream, form the interior surfaces of the cockpit and are the closest part to the driver over the vast majority of the cockpit:

Quote:

---

D.8.f. 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.

---

I apologize for the long reply, hope it's helpful.

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nulrich

Hi Ron:

I've heard of some bizarre interpretations of the GCR being circulated via private messages and emails, thanks for posting this particular private communication so I can defend our design! (And I don't think this particular interpretation is "bizarre," just incorrect).

If the language in the GCR said "non-ferrous metal" or, better yet, "nonferrous metal alloy" then I would agree it would exclude composite materials. It doesn't, it says "non-ferrous" with a hyphen. The most direct and logical interpretation of that is "not ferrous" and therefore anything that doesn't contain at least 50% iron. The simple explanation is that brackets don't have to be steel, which is an interpretation that has been used to construct very complex assemblies of aluminum panels that are "brackets" for the transmission (otherwise known as bell housings). That is how constructors have avoided the prohibition against stressed-skin construction in section B.1 (and elsewhere) in the GCR to allow monocoque assembled bell housings.

I agree those brackets are much more than a single part used for attachment (the conventional idea of a bracket) but that's how the GCR has been interpreted, so that same interpretation applies to our cockpit protection panels, which are much simpler than a multi-part bolted-together bell housing like used in the latest Citation. I suspect that's why the proposed new rules remove the prohibition against stressed-skin construction (they scratched out the six inch rule and the rule prohibiting monocoque structures).

If you search on the web, you can find many definitions of "nonferrous" (without a hyphen). I've been designing and machining mechanical parts for 25 years, and I have never heard anyone limit "nonferrous" to metal alloys. In fact, many cutting guidelines for end mills and drills include plastics in their definition of "nonferrous."

If they meant to only allow aluminum or magnesium they could have used the term "light alloy." Of course that would exclude people from making brackets out of plastic, which I've seen on many cars.

And, even with all this, our panels don't even need to meet the definition of bracket to be legal. They are also clearly legal as cockpit interior panels--they are inside the cockpit, not licked by the airstream, form the interior surfaces of the cockpit and are the closest part to the driver over the vast majority of the cockpit:

I apologize for the long reply, hope it's helpful.

Nathan

---

Nope - that was helpful, but I'll respectfully disagree. The GCR does say "alloy" in its def. of ferrous, and hyphen or no "non" means (to me - what do I know) less than 50% iron and not "non-alloy". I've never heard of "alloy" refer to anything other than metallic.

BTW - you must be referring to someone elses' PM, but hey - glad to help!

Not sure I would pinned all this investment on a hyphen, but you're the one building the things and I just race them. Despite our differences, I am impressed with what you've done.

Okay, Ron, we'll just have to disagree on this one. In my opinion, saying something "may be non-ferrous" is pretty clear, and shouldn't imply any sort of constraint not stated in the rule. It also says "may" not "shall" or "must," as Rick pointed out.

I'm definitely not staking anything on the hyphen! The panels are legal with or without the hyphen, and they don't even have to meet the definition of bracket to be allowed since the rules specifically permit them.

I'd be glad to let the Court of Appeals decide if they don't succeed in banning our car.

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Foschi

And who are these investors? (edited) Come on spill your guts.

---

Finelli, Reilly, Myself. ;) You han't heard? We're planning on amending the rules so that all cars will now have to run on scotch.


I know nathan and I know camadella and they are both good guys. I've heard rumors of who else bought cars but they are nothing more than rumors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Foschi

Why so hush hush?

---

If you bought a jumbo sized tube of Preparation H, would you expect the good folks at the Pfizer Corporation to tell everyone about it? Or maybe the guy who watched you put it in your shopping cart (ie me as an outside observer who hears rumors of purchases)? I surely hope not.


Ok Enough "feeding of the trolls", Back to the chassis stuff (the purpose of this thread).

It's up the the SCCA and it's members (us) to determine the legality. Read the rules, send in your letters, they'll ad up the yeah's vs. the nays, and it's decided.

If it's eventually legal and you get beat by it, submit a protest with a protest fee and see where it goes.


Nathan. I'm not 100% sure as to the legality of the thing (I keep flip flopping, as we're venturing into grey areas), but I certainly think it's cool and you're to be complimented on your creativity and the stellar build quality of all the parts you've produced.

Mounting it to the outside of the frame makes it an interior panel?


It amazes me that someone would go so far down this path without coming off of $300 to go ahead and have it ruled legal or to find out that you need to go back to the drawing board. You don't get to read the GCR like a lawyer and yes, the history of how things have been done will definitely be considered. 1.2.3 is one of the most important rules in the GCR. From my experience, they will use that to preserve the intent of the rules, and the CRB will be the ones to decide what that intent was. That doesn't make it right, but that is your reality. I can't even begin to imagine your car getting past 1.2.3.

So if someone tears up a panel at the track, they will just be able to pull a new panel out of the trailer and bolt it right up?

Tim the 86 construction rules limiting carbon /kevlar only pertained to D1 through D7 which were chassis/frame,crushable structure,driver protection,stress bearing floor and bulkheads,brackets and body.

Nathan in FF/FF2000 at the beginning of their rules it is stated that these are restricted classes.Therefore any allowable modifications,changes,or additions are as stated herein.There are no exceptions.In all the GCR's up to 2009 one of the fundamental rules was the composite(carbon/kevlar) restrictions in the 86 construction section.In 2010 they went through and tried to condense the wording in most of the GCR.If the rule would have been changed to allow carbon/kevlar construction it would have been changed in the GCR to say composite construction(Carbon/Kevlar) is now allowed.It was not stated as an allowable modification,change or addition in the 2010 GCR therefore the rule was not changed to allow there use.Also in all the previous to 2010 GCR's in the D6.d of the 86 construction rules pertaining to brackets the word nonferrous is without a hyphen.Whoever reworded the rules may have thought nonferrous had a hyphen in it.It is obvious looking at the previous 24 years of GCR's that the intent was nonferrous not non-ferrous and the intent was no composite (carbon/kevlar) construction as per the same previous 24 GCR's. If you made your piece out of aluminum,steel or kevlar it would be allowed on the sides for driver protection.You also state in a previous post that your tube frame is legal to the GCR.I don't see it being GCR legal with almost no triangular tubing or cross braces in any bays.It would have to be submitted as an alternate design.In order for it to even be considered it would have to be accompanied by engineering specifications signed by a registered engineer but that does not mean that they have to approve it.If I was the one deciding on allowing your frame with only a few token tubes and no side,cross or triangular tubing I would not except it if you had a hundred engineers sign off on it.If someone happened to hit a concrete barrier protecting corner workers or some other non moving object at high speed the only thing keeping the front roll hoop from running into the rear roll hoop in a frame with tubing like yours would be the lump doing the steering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

Mounting it to the outside of the frame makes it an interior panel?

---

If it's inside the cockpit and forms the interior surface of the cockpit it's a cockpit interior panel. Whether it is mounted inside or outside the tube frame is irrelevant.

But, as I've said repeatedly, we'll happily abide by any Court of Appeals ruling under the 2010 rules. We just don't want the rules changed specifically to ban our car.

Quote:

---

So if someone tears up a panel at the track, they will just be able to pull a new panel out of the trailer and bolt it right up?

---

Yes, exactly! Of course, if they "tear up" one of the cockpit protection panels it would have been a horrific accident (the panels are STOUT) and there will be a lot of other parts to repair or replace outside of the cockpit. Still, the repair will be a lot easier and cheaper than cutting out steel tubes, straightening the remaining tubes, and cutting, fitting and welding new ones. And you are much more likely to survive a bad accident inside the safety cell in our car.

Nathan