Side panels and other upgrades

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

The interesting thing for me is the high correlation between the FEA analysis of my frames and the test of the finished car. The test is simply setting the car up without shocks and springs. One end is supported on the suspension and other on a pivot point. Then I load one corner of the pivot end with weight and measure the twist of chassis at each axel center line. If you add more measuring points you get a good idea of what a chassis is doing and where you might have a problem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

Gents:
I just got this from Elan. The mounting looks shakey at best. I don't know enough about the composite Tegris that it's made of. They're 1800 a pair.

---

[FONT=Verdana]Yes, FEA is a great tool, really saves a lot of time in the design and development phase. We do a lot of FEA for composite structure optimization (hundreds of hours in the case of the Radon chassis) and we are developing better tools as we go. Like you, we typically see excellent correlation with testing results.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]At $900 each, the Elan panels seem pretty expensive. Aside from the mounting issues, I'm a bit concerned they don't include any structural material. The polypropylene fiber they use, although very light and cheap, and fairly effective in a "ballistic" sense, doesn't have much strength. An effective side protection panel needs some structural integrity, so a better solution is to include a substantial amount of a high tensile strength material like carbon fiber or Kevlar. The fewer fasteners used, the stronger it needs to be.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]The panels we made for Radon are carbon fiber combined with Innegra (a low-cost, low-density Kevlar-like fabric). We sold them to Radon for less than $900 each (sorry Nathan), but they would have been entitled to recover some of their expense and make a profit, so I'm guessing they would have retailed for around $1200. Of course, they would have also performed the function of (a very cool) cockpit interior panel, and a bracket for mounting everything, including bodywork. Colin Chapman had it right when he said "simplify and add lightness." [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Manufacturing methods for composites have come a long way and the costs are coming down. It wasn’t long ago that aluminum was an exotic material and CNC machining was "high-tech," but now it seems like everyone has one in their garage![/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]One nice thing about the Radon style side protection panels is that they are very easy to inspect and repair, even simpler than tube frames. If there are any doubts about structural integrity, it's a matter of an hour or two to replace one, and the cost is less than trying to straighten and repair a tube frame. We also purposely used solid laminate (with Innegra plies in the center) to make the panels easy to repair, no honeycomb or foam core to worry about. However, any if any impact protection has taken a significant shunt, it has expended its useful life (maybe saving yours) & should be replaced.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]I have also attached a picture of the (legal!?!) carbon fiber ducts with integral impact attenuation tubes. This was one of the first ones & is not the prettiest part. Again, something we built & planned to test, but without a proper backup structure, they are just dead weight. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Darrin[/FONT]

Guys,

Please help me understand this rule change, clarification or what ever you want it to be called.

Aluminum panels mounted to exterior of the frame with rivets less than 6" on center are not legal ( stiffens frame) ?

Aluminum panels mounted to exterior of the frame with rivets more than 6" on center are not legal ( stiffens frame)?

Aluminum panels mounted to exterior of the frame with pipe clamps, cable ties, safety wire, double sided tape, u-bolts or bubble gum are legal?

Or is legal to mount Aluminum panels with rivets more than 6" on center, but not carbon fiber or other composite material ?

Thanks,
John

Why don't we put wings on a Hummer, mount 6 and 8 tires and re map the motor to match the pinto. We would then solve the safety issues, allow for compabability with the older cars, and take advantage of newer technology.
Lord knows that it would be much cooler in the cockpit with AC and you could block the road like the S2000's do to us.:)

We should!:greenflag: but can't leave out state of the art spec wheels and skinny tires.... :tire:
anyways sorry to be a bit off topic, it is amusing to me..

Let's ask the question another way. We have been running Aluminum side intrusion panels riveted on the exterior of the frame for the last two years. The rivets are more than 6" on center and are the only means of fastening the panels. Is this legal?

I am not trying to stir s**t, I just want to know if this configuration is legal or not.

Thanks,
John

My engineer, non lawyer, common sense opinion says yes the panels in the above post are legal.

But make certain that they meet the minimum thickness required for side intrusion panels called for in the GCR or you could be potentially be non compliant on the intrusion protection side of the rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Caldwell

Let's ask the question another way. We have been running Aluminum side intrusion panels riveted on the exterior of the frame for the last two years. The rivets are more than 6" on center and are the only means of fastening the panels. Is this legal?

I am not trying to stir s**t, I just want to know if this configuration is legal or not.

Thanks,
John

---

Yes, you are legal if the aluminum is thick enough & mounted as described. I think the rules are very clear in this regard. Here it is from the GCR.

b. 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.
1. Panel(s), minimum of either .060 inch heat treated aluminum
(6061-T6 or equivalent) or 18 gauge steel, attached to the outside
of the main frame tubes. No other material types will be allowed
for these panels.
2. Reinforced body - at minimum, consisting of two layers of 5 ounce,
bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body
which shall be securely fastened to the frame. (5 layers are highly
recommended.)
For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than 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.

This is D.7. Chassis/Frame in the GCR. I suggest that you look it up & read the entire set of rules for your car.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

In 1993 I spent some money and bought my self a Sony Trintron with 400 lines of resolution and that was great. The other day I got one of those flat screen TV...you know 1080P and all that and boy talk about a nice picture. As years pass, with the NEW technology....flat screen are a lot more affordable. O and safer have you ever try to move a 135 lb box(TV) that is 5'x3 feet and has all the weight up front (lead) ?
I don't understand why some would chose to watch dancing with stars with 400 lines of res if you don't have to.
That are we afraid of hear? Why don't we ahead with New technology
Cheaper, safer more fun, the girl butts look A lot better in HD. Or is there an alternative motive? I wonder.
Peter.:D

Steve,

Thanks for the reply. I wasn't sure if common sense was applicable.


Jay,

Thanks for the reply. I am familiar with the rules but was concerned after reading Mr. Pare's post #1 that I had missed a rule change / clarification that altered what was apparent in the GRC.

Thanks,
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

Where in the GCR does it give the COA authority to change rules?

---

Semantics. They aren't actually changing the text of the rule. By ruling what it does or doesn't allow when it doesn't specifically spell it out, they are in effect, chaging the rule to mean something else.

Example that may make my point clearer to you: direct-acting shifters. We have a different definition of what that means. IF the COA ruled that my interpretation was correct, you'd feel that they COA changed the rule. IF the COA ruled your interpretation was correct you'd say "that's what the rule said all along" right? It's about perspective as to whether or not you think a COA ruling changes a rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

This rather long posting is to assist with a better understanding of the Compliance Review Process....

---

Thank you for the enlightening post. I certainly misunderstood the process. I assumed that the COA process was not AUTOMATIC, but rather a further step the member was taking if they didn't agree with the prior decision (like in our legal system) or if they wanted to have a higher court, if you will, affirm the prior decision so that somebody else couldn't have it changed on appeal.

8.1.4 Compliance Review
A member may not request a determination on the compliance of his vehicle or tis components through the Club Racing Department.
A. Upon receiving a request, the Chairman of the Stewards Program will convene a review committee. The committee will consult with the Club Racing Board for expert technical testimony prior to determining the compliance of the item(s) in question. The review committee will convey their decision to the member, and notify the Chairman of the Steward's Program, who will then forward the decision the the appropriate parties
B. The Court of Appeals will consider the request and the committee's decision. The member may submit additional evidence to the CoA after receiving the review committee's decision.
In it's review, the CoA will consult with the Club Racing Board for expert technical testimony prior to determining the compliance of the item(s) in question. The CoA will render their decision to the member, and the Chairman of the Steward's Program.
C. Penalties or penalty points will not be assessed in the event of a negative ruling.
D. A non-compliant ruling will be published; a compliant ruling will not be published. Court of Appeals decision on technical compliance are effective for the calendar year during which they are rendered, and are superseded by the following year's edition of the GCR.
D. The fee for this service is $300. A portion of the fee may be refunded at the discretion of the Court of Appeals.

I think that's it?

A member may, may request. Sorry about that , his vehicle. Ect

Peter;
I think that the Radon ruling was a 50% deal. They have changed the interpretation of the belly pan rule.

In an earlier post Brendan and I were discussing the new car cost issue and the need to have some innovation to induce people to build and buy new cars. Looking at the history of formula car racing over the last 40 years, you will see that when new cars are equal to 50% of medium US income (today something like $45,000 per year) sales are great. That was the case through the '70's and early '80's. Cars that cost more than 100% of medium income don't sell in large quantities. FV, FF and FC have traditionally sold for less than medium income. I think these classes stay popular and survive even though new cars cost more than medium income if, and only if, you can still by good, competitive equipment for less than medium income. That is the case of FF and FC today. Just because a new car might cost $70,000, that does not mean that to win you have to have a new $70,000 car. In the end it is preparation and driving that wins even with old cars.

The Radon might not have upset the balance between new and used cars but the son of Radon certainly would have. You can't sell very many new cars when the used car values are dropping. Today's housing market, anyone?

The class calls for tube framed cars. I think that means that a car has to be fully functional as a tube frame car. That means that the car works the same even though I remove 1/2 or 2/3 of the panel fasteners. It means that the driver's safety is not compromised if the fastening system fails. If conduit clamps won't do the job, there is a design problem.

I would hope that we do advance the safety of the cars and I think everyone owes the backers of the Radon a thank-you for putting the issue out front and making some real contributions. I think some rules changes may be in order to allow for improved safety.

Steve, what does a new Citation cost? I know it's a kit but not the kit cost, how much would it cost if I paid Eric L. to build me one, a roller let say.
Also, what you think the rules say and what I think the rules say are totally different. But that doesn't seen to matter much. What matters is what the COA says, they say.
Thanks
Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Gonzalez

Steve, what does a new Citation cost? I know it's a kit but not the kit cost, how much would it cost if I paid Eric L. to build me one, a roller let say.
Also, what you think the rules say and what I think the rules say are totally different. But that doesn't seen to matter much. What matters is what the COA says, they say.
Thanks
Peter.

---

The COA has always had the ultimate power over the rules. This is the supreme court of SCCA. The process that Nathan used should favor the party petitioning because they don't have and adversary arguing the case against the petition. Also the COA often does not have the experience to know all the issues involved in some rules. That is why you saw that the Radon ruling had dissent.

My guess is that the parts will cost $35,000 to $45,000. Assembly will be a full time job for at least 2 months and requires fabricating skill. Eric can do a better job of giving you a price than I. It is possible to get a car on the track for $40,000 but you will have a high sweat equity factor. Several customers have been able to get some real values and save a ton on expensive components by recycling.

[FONT=Verdana]I have also attached a picture of the (legal!?!) carbon fiber ducts with integral impact attenuation tubes. This was one of the first ones & is not the prettiest part. Again, something we built & planned to test, but without a proper backup structure, they are just dead weight. [/FONT]

Damn! Your ugly prototype parts looks way better than anything I've seen out of élan!!!!

Steve, so I made some phone calls and talked to people who are familiar
with the Citation and it sounds like ready to go on track it will cost a
lot more than the Radon. I've seen both and the Radon is much higher
quality and much better designed. If you dont believe me just ask
Hanrahan or any of the other people that have been in the Radon shop.
Its also a lot safer. I'm not knocking you I know you guys did a good job, but
its an older design and when was the last time it was updated?
Do you supply the frame all welded or do I have to do that myself? Your
talking about joints failing but Ive seen some scary welds on SCCA
racecars so if your allowing customers to do it themselves that would be
a safety concern. Ive sat in a Radon and I know I feel a lot safer and
more protected and I trust all the engineers that worked on it.
I think theres a place for the Citation for those people that want to
build a car themselves and thats great, but the Radon, attracts new blood
and younger drivers to FC and I think we need that.
Whats the son of Radon?
Thanks
Peter.

I'm sorry I can't let this go ! Peter , did you have to slam the Citation like that ? How many race cars have YOU built ?? You might want to take note of the results from the Runoffs also. Outdated my butt ! Those are dam good cars, well engineered,very fast and pretty to boot. You stated your opinion and I'm stating mine. Now lets get back on topic, 0-k ?

I'll second what Gregg said, Citations are still among the best designed and built cars around. I've yet to see one that wasnt built and prepared to the highest standards of quality. The idea that they are outdated or unsafe is ridiculous. You're barking up the wrong tree there.

BTW, "Son of Radon" would be the next generation of design to come out if the Radon was approved and the next level of design would take things to a whole other level was the point he was making.

Tom

Sorry Pops it was just a question. In my business I like to know what the competition is doing so I can keep. I think it's great a Citation won the run offs, I am always happy for the success of other, I think the world would be a better place if more people felt that way.
Steve was saying that the Radon was too expensive. After you pay someone to build a Citation for you, how much is that going to cost $90,000? Maybe some one can tell us?
But the truth is FC is bunch of 15 year old designs competing against each other. Maybe Radon is bulding a more modern car and the other manufacturers are not happy with that.
Like Grandfather use to say, son there is always going be somone faster, better lookings, smarter and younger than you are. It's just the way it is.
And I think the guy at Radon Know that.
Sorry I will stick to the topic from now on.

Peter

Peter, you're exactly right that in both FC and FF there has been little to no advancement in design for more than 15 years. With the popularity of the F2 Pro Series and the new FF Pro Series, if there was ever a time in the US to get some new cars built, that time is now, so I agree with you that some fresh designs and ideas would help keep these series alive for the long-term.

The problem everyone is wrestling with is how to insure that any new designs dont obsolete all current cars and start a never ending design war that escalates costs to the point that only a few can afford to compete. There is a fine line there. If the Radon design doesnt obsolete current cars, is safer, if in fact it doesnt cost any more than current cars and if it wont set off an expensive design war, then it should get a fair shake if that's what everyone currently competing wants, keeping in mind that most series die a quick death when costs get out of control.

Take care.

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Gonzalez

Steve, so I made some phone calls and talked to people who are familiar
with the Citation and it sounds like ready to go on track it will cost a
lot more than the Radon. I've seen both and the Radon is much higher
quality and much better designed. If you dont believe me just ask
Hanrahan or any of the other people that have been in the Radon shop.
Its also a lot safer. I'm not knocking you I know you guys did a good job, but
its an older design and when was the last time it was updated?
Do you supply the frame all welded or do I have to do that myself? Your
talking about joints failing but Ive seen some scary welds on SCCA
racecars so if your allowing customers to do it themselves that would be
a safety concern. Ive sat in a Radon and I know I feel a lot safer and
more protected and I trust all the engineers that worked on it.
I think theres a place for the Citation for those people that want to
build a car themselves and thats great, but the Radon, attracts new blood
and younger drivers to FC and I think we need that.
Whats the son of Radon?
Thanks
Peter.

---

I gues I fell for that trap. Good setup. Peter.

The nice thing about racing is the BS stops when the green flag drops. At this monent the Citations have a track record, as do the VDs, Swifts and a bunch of others. Forgot the Wheeler.

If any new car is introduced that is competitive AND less expensive...how does that lead to escalating costs?

What it does do is put a dent in the profitability and/or the sales volume of the previous cars to have.

Can someone please post the list of races won by Radons?

I don't consider myself an expert, but I'm struggling with the logic that just because some really smart guys designed a car very carefully, that car is automatically better than existing cars that have won races.

Josh, it's fear of the unknown...any radical change to the way cars are built has the "potential" to obsolete existing cars and the "potential" to lead to an escalation in costs. The fall-back position is to disallow anything new just to be safe. If everyone was assured that approving the construction methods used in the Radon would not increase cost, would be safer and would not be any faster then nobody would be objecting. The question is how can everyone be assured of that = fear of the unknown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Valet

Josh, it's fear of the unknown...any radical change to the way cars are built has the "potential" to obsolete existing cars and the "potential" to lead to an escalation in costs. The fall-back position is to disallow anything new just to be safe. If everyone was assured that approving the construction methods used in the Radon would not increase cost, would be safer and would not be any faster then nobody would be objecting. The question is how can everyone be assured of that = fear of the unknown.

---

In light of that, there are several posters in this thread that I don't know. I think we should ban them just to be safe. Will someone please think of the children?

Doug;

IMO this was once a productive thread and interesting thread. Thanks to Richard, Darren and those that contributed in a meaningful way. I guess it's time to lock it down.

SteveO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Gonzalez

I've seen both and the Radon is much higher
quality and much better designed.

---

I would consider the legal design a better design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quickshoe

If any new car is introduced that is competitive AND less expensive...how does that lead to escalating costs?

What it does do is put a dent in the profitability and/or the sales volume of the previous cars to have.

---

I know that a Citation frame is less than $5k, so all of this talk about what is cheaper is really, really pointless.

I am around the Citation guys enough to know that absolutely no one is making any money on those cars. I think there have been 2 Citation FC cars built in the last 10 years, so I can't imagine the sales volume going much lower. No one is worried about about their profitability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SOseth

Doug;

IMO this was once a productive thread and interesting thread. Thanks to Richard, Darren and those that contributed in a meaningful way. I guess it's time to lock it down.

SteveO

---

I could not agree more.

Why? Because you've had enough? Perhaps there is more to be learned. If you've learned all you think you'll learn from the thread move on.

Starkjet and Tom Valet have both recently contributed some valid observations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quickshoe

Why? Because you've had enough? Perhaps there is more to be learned. If you've learned all you think you'll learn from the thread move on.

Starkjet and Tom Valet have both recently contributed some valid observations.

---

Because it has descended into name calling again. Peter seems to have decided it would be best to start insulting other cars because the car that he wanted to buy or has already bought or was just a fan of was ruled to have illegal design features. Then other people started to bring up their ridiculous conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact and are nothing more than personal insults to Steve and Richard.

I think we all know that the technology is dated. is that ok? can I say that or are the police going to come over any take me away. Or shut us down.
Now I am afraid speak my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Gonzalez

I think we all know that the technology is dated. is that ok? can I say that or are the police going to come over any take me away. Or shut us down.
Now I am afraid speak my mind.

---

I don't think there is anything dated about it given the rules for our tube frame class.

Does it look anything like a current F1 car? No. F1 is an entirely different design problem than FC and I can't think of any reason for them to look alike.

I will agree that it is dated as soon as it is no longer competitive.

Wren,
I guess it should be interesting to see, the two cars on a track. Who knows maybe the Radon will make a good coffee table. Are they going to be able to run with the aluminum panels?
Peter

In the paperwork Nathan filed with SCCA and what he posted here he said he was already prepared to make the needed changes if the CoA ruled against the car. I am sure its not what he wanted to do by I see no reason why there wont be a Radon running.

Nathan said all along that he could put an aluminum panel on, but in the last thread he said that he was stopping building cars and looking for ways to recover his investment, whatever that means.

Fair enough Wren. It boils down to perspective once again. I didn't see any name calling, just some stated opinions as to why one chassis might be a better value than another in an attempt to quiet the concerns about cost escalation.

Just a thought on side impact strength of any chassis. Here is some perspective. In 1986 at the Runoffs at Road Atlanta I was in a serious accident in 1st Q. My frame was a large tube frame with 2 side (passenger bay) tubes of 1,5 X 3.0 X .083 tubes that were about 12" from top to bottom + a diagonal between the tubes & an upper diagonal above those tubes too.

I was T-boned by another car in the class at over 100 mph. I sustained a fractured left knee an a trimalleolar fracture of my left ankle. I also suffered much bruseing in general. Obviously I survived to race another day.

I do not know the dimensions of the side of the opening at the passenger bay of the Radon but it is pretty large. I very much doubt that the side panels on a Radon could handle a 1200 lb car straight into the side of said panel at 100 mph. THIS IS MY OPINION ONLY.

I am all for advances in saftey & I think that Nathan has created an ingenious design. However there are limitations to any system & I think a T-bone by a 1200 lb car at 100 mph just might exceed the capabilities of that system.

Jay,
What car is that you are describing? Sounds much more substantial than a
Van Diemen, how do you think a VD would do in such a crash?
Peter.

Also Jay I think that the Radon was design on a computer, so they can run stress test on the panels, frame, on the hole thing. Like most things that are built these day.
I am sure somebody can explain it better than I can.
Peter

Darrin;

The Europeans have a requirement for anti-intrusion panels for FF. If SCCA were to change the rules for FF/FC/FB and were to increase the protection provided on the sides of the car similar to Europe what would you suggest that we consider? What materials, how thick, etc.

Just as a point of discussion, the Elan side panels and the body side panels on my car look very similar. I could increase the Kevlar in my side panels to say 8 layers and then vacuum bag the part and still have a part that will fit. Is there a less expensive material than Kevlar? On the IRL IPS cars the Zylon panels were mostly behind the radiator side pods. Would something like that be an option? The IPS panels are nearly 1/2 inch thick.

Sorry for the length of my response to correct an assertion that about the Citation being a 15 year old design. Sorry also for being off topic.

Here goes: the adage about form following function is just as true in racing as elsewhere. The 1994 Citation that won the 2009 FF national championship incorporates so many changes that I did a ground up new design. That car ran just enough races to qualify for the 2007 run offs where it finished 2nd. We build cars to a formula and the formula for FC has been unchanged since the late 80's. The only real change since the rules were laid down has been the tires. We are constantly changing our design in response to changes in the tires. Speed is dependent on drag (HP being given) and frontal area is the largest component of drag. Everyone has the same tires so that leaves everything else to work on to reduce drag. Cooling is going to account for a certain amount of drag. I think Swift did the drag thing about as well as you are going to get. I think I am in that same ball park either plus or minus some drag. That would be the 94 Citation.

The next function item for performance is mechanical grip. That is constantly changing even as the car is on the track. The hard compound tires that we use in the pro series today give more grip than the best tires did in 94. It is the mechanical grip issues that have driven our development and still do. If a car is slightly deficient in mechanical grip, then you can overcome that with down force in FC and FB. But there is a drag penalty with down force. There are some significant conflicts between the aerodynamic fashions of today and optimizing suspension design for maximum grip. Current fashion also tends to raise conflicts with structural design of the chassis. I am trying to build cars for three formulas. FF demands that I maximize mechanical grip and minimize total drag. I am starting from that point for all the classes I am building cars for. I continuously update cars until the original design limits that updating process. Then I do a new design. All the car designers do the same thing. The other secret is that we make more money selling parts than cars.

Because I have not followed current fashion, someone who is marginally knowledgeable about the issues in designing a car might conclude that I am just old fashion, out of step. If one's view of the field is from the middle of the pack, I can understand such a view. The VD is the most numerous car and I think it is only in the tenth year of development and the designers of the VD are working on a new FC.