Oh No, Not Again

When I bought into FC five years ago, I knew I had a lot to learn in order to keep up. I knew the class would advance because that was the nature and intent of the rules.
I've spent the last five years learning every aspect of the car. I have become familiar with mechanical grip and aero grip. I know my tires and my air pressure. I know my low pressure and my high pressure. I know that some diffusers create so much downforce that they will suck themselves right off the car if you don't add brackets.
I have spent a lot of time learning what I can, and I have spent a lot of money paying other people for the things I don't know.
I bought into all this and I accept it without question. I had no idea how much time and effort it would take to keep up. Just keeping the bodywork tight and keeping the car balanced has become my "second job", and along with cutting the grass has consumed most of my evenings.
I do this work myself because of the challenge but also because I can't afford a new car. I'm going to stay in FC despite the fact that I can't afford the new Radon.
So it seems to me that there are two groups of car owners who will stay in FC. Those, like me, that do it for the challenge. And those, unlike me, that can buy the new stuff.
So where does the new stuff go? If it's going into the F2000 series, well...have at it boys, as far as I'm concerned. You guys can figure out parity. Parity really didn't help the Pinto compete with the Zetec. Unless the dyno sheet that Elite is handing the Pinto guys reads 155 HP, which of course it does not.
But when the new stuff enters club racing, I have to keep up. So long as I can keep up with my driver, my mechanical grip package, my aero package, my springs, shocks ARBs and tires, I'm happy, even if I have to learn more, buy more stuff and rely on my pro shop a little more. But I didn't expect to buy a new car every five years. This is not the spirit and intent of the FC rules.

I'm not an FC guy, or a techie, but if everything I'm led to believe on this thread is true, then there has been amazing parity in FC for 25 years, and the Radon is a Hallie's comet event. Therefore, you should only have to buy a new car every quarter of a century, or once in a lifetime of racing, for nearly everyone.
That is, if everything I'm led to belive in this thread is true.

Calling Bernie . . . . .

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...6B_Fan_car.jpg

There are a lot of sharp people on this thread. I'm sure that the designers of the Piper, Citation, RFR and whatever else comes down the pipe can match anything Nathan came up with. I think where Nathan has done well was to actually implement the new features. I've seen 2 side panel punctures in 3 months. I've seen a lot of bad stuff over the years that could have been prevented. There is no reason why the safety thing can't be worked out between the users of the class and the car makers in the class. I think that the Radon is a good start but by no means the end of what can be done. I believe that the other marques could answer anything that the Radon has to offer. I've seen the all the other marques in the class do real well at Pro Races. Why because the driver and the resources thrown at the cars. I've watched Cole in a what I considered a less than top shelf car kick everyone's ass at Nationals. Let's give the people who drive the cars some credit too. The class should be more evolutionary. I think the Radon is a good start. But by no means the end. Our class will end up being a historic class if things don't' change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

The class should be more evolutionary. . . . . Our class will end up being a historic class if things don't' change.

---

You have defined the real issue here. Some want the evolutionary (read continuously expensive) option and others want something much closer to the status quo. Same issues conceived Club Ford. The class, through some iterations, developed into a quasi-spec class using much lower tetchnologies. Now that the technological revolution has reached the class the earlier rules do not/can not apply. It is too easy for someone to make a better mousetrap. And, to some, not outside the realms of expense. A lot of guys like(d) the old ways bacause the expenses could be kept to a minimum with hard work and personal time commitment being enough to stay at the pointy end of the grid. Those were the days, my friend. Now that we have some very clever people applying the new technollogies, along with some investment, things will change. Can the class accept a two tier rules structure? I doubt it. Could this brouhaha lead to the demise of the current FC concept? Maybe.

Listen to Steve, Nathan, and Al. The rules, whatever they wind up as, need to be written/clarified. As far as the Radon, it should be easy enough to decide on legality as the rules stood when the car was homologated/designed/blessed by the CoA. Changing the rules half way through the game just isn't crickett.

Worrying about following the money or who has investments where and who wrote what is just obfuscation and piddling. Figure out what is best for the class; first you have to define the concept. There are a lot of really bright guys out there - get them together with a common purpose and start writing.

the Radon is without question the prettiest FC I've seen and looks like it is built top quality but it seems very premature that everyone is so "up in arms" or "concerned" that it will make every other car obsolete. A top driver is going to do well in any relatively good car. I'm so surprised (but happy for them) that they sold as many cars as they have. The car is still unproven, isn't it?? If you think it has components that deem it illegal then protest it, but if it is decided legal as per current rules let it be, you can't outlaw a car that was built per rules because it (and again unproven) kicks butt. Figuring out a better mousetrap shouldn't be discouraged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnPaul

if it is decided legal as per current rules let it be, you can't outlaw a car that was built per rules because it (and again unproven) kicks butt. Figuring out a better mousetrap shouldn't be discouraged.

---

Oh but they can certainly try to outlaw it, and therefore discourage everybody else from making a better mousetrap. They'll say something along the lines "if that's what the rules were intended to allow don't you think we would have done it years ago?" Fact is, they didn't do it because they didn't have to in order to remain competitive.

Nathan, Steve and any other designers please chime in,

But I think restricting the anti intrusion panels to fastened with a total of 8 bolts will make them ppretty useless as IMHO, they would jsut tear out given the small total cross section area that this would allow to be utilized to hold the panel when it goes into tension as in an impact.

That is unless the panel is very very stiff or the frame tubes behind it are very closely spaced.

Jimh,

A 1991 DB-6 not a top shelf car?:mad: Now this thread is getting personal.

Steve:

Good question. If I understand the proposed rule correctly the intent is to prevent any stiffening of the chassis by the cockpit protection panels.

That means the tube frame chassis would need the desired torsional stiffness all by itself, requiring, typically, many tubes and lots of welding (count the tubes and the hours of labor in a Mygale or a Van Diemen tube frame). On top of that, as you point out, the panels need substantial strength and stiffness on their own to be effective. For example, cockpit protection panels required by the FIA for tube frame chassis must be 10 mm thick Zylon, making them cost on the order of $3,000 each and weigh about 20 lbs each.

In effect, you have all of the expense and weight of a conventional tube frame chassis and an additional $6,000 in cost and 40 lbs in weight for no benefit other than safety. Unfortunately, most racers are unlikely to accept more cost and decreased performance even if it makes them safer.

In the Radon chassis the tube frame and the panels work together to provide both torsional stiffness and driver protection. By using the panels to provide some stiffening (severely limited by the six inch spacing) we can eliminate many of the tube braces. And by mounting the panels to the frame at about 20 points we can use the strength of the tube frame chassis to help support the panels and provide increased penetration resistance.

The end result is a chassis that has about the same torsional stiffness as fully braced tube frame but provides substantially more penetration resistance. And it does so at less cost and the same weight, so the driver doesn't suffer a performance or cost penalty for the increased safety. (Our panels retail for under $1000 each, by the way.)

The smooth interior of the cockpit is also less likely to cause damage to a driver in a major crash, and the chassis is easier and cheaper to repair.

All of the attention focused on the carbon fiber cockpit panels is ironic, since despite claims to the contrary they provide no performance advantage, just a big safety benefit for no additional cost. People tend to ascribe mythical properties to "carbon fiber," thinking it magically provides infinite stiffness, but the reality is using aluminum panels in the same way would provide more stiffness for the same weight (although very little penetration resistance). Anyone saying otherwise clearly doesn't understand the structural limitations of the six-inch rule or the real world properties of carbon fiber in an application like this. I do have the benefit of hundreds of hours of structural analysis of exactly this application. Does anyone else?

Nathan

Nathan,

I ran and plan to run aluminum side intrusion panels on my FB car. What would I have to do to make for better penetration protection without raising the cost very much? My panels are also the side of the body so carbon is not an option.

Jerry

Jerry:

No brilliant ideas for you. My first suggestion would be to reinforce your aluminum panels with a material like Kevlar. Ideally, you'd put the Kevlar on the outside and call it the "body." Otherwise, you could sandwich the Kevlar between two sheets of aluminum or between the aluminum and the frame. I'd have to see your design to make a specific suggestion.

Unfortunately, under the FB rules (unlike FF/FC) there is a restriction that composite materials can't be used in any structural application. Not sure exactly what that means, or how it would be enforced, but it may mean you can't add Kevlar reinforcement to your aluminum panels, even though they are your bodywork. Since to be effective you'll want to mount your panels at centers as close to six inches as possible, it would be hard to argue that the Kevlar is not structural.

Given that restriction, the best you can do is make your aluminum panels as thick as possible and out of the strongest material you can afford. Aluminum isn't nearly as effective against penetration as composite materials, but it's better than nothing.

Nathan

Neat car!

Frazier

Arrow/TAG

all this bull**** bickering and squabbling makes me want to sell my car and quit racing again. I can't be the only one who feels like this.

get in the f*cking car and drive, and while you're at it quit pissing in each other's cheerios.

I'm not a driver, 'Nut. Are you yelling at me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnPaul

the Radon is without question the prettiest FC I've seen and looks like it is built top quality but it seems very premature that everyone is so "up in arms" or "concerned" that it will make every other car obsolete. A top driver is going to do well in any relatively good car. I'm so surprised (but happy for them) that they sold as many cars as they have. The car is still unproven, isn't it?? If you think it has components that deem it illegal then protest it, but if it is decided legal as per current rules let it be, you can't outlaw a car that was built per rules because it (and again unproven) kicks butt. Figuring out a better mousetrap shouldn't be discouraged.

---

WELL SAID !!! It is soo sad to see a new well done car received by the establishment with so much contempt ... if its leagal to the current rules HUSH UP AND MAKE A BETTER CAR !! or improve the VD or other cars to better the breed dont just sit there and CRY about how you are going to get spanked !! COME ON isnt this RACING ??? were does PC have any place in this deal .. get on with it and lets race !!

I saw the SENNA movie ... sat... really put things in perspective .. if your getting BEAT then try harder !! ..and stop whining .. really the RADON wont be the LAST car that will ever come along that will be inovative and MAYBE better......... really .. good for them for getting it done .... now the rest of us may have to sharpen out pencil a bit but really is that such a huge deal ????

The item in Fastrack originated in the F/SR Advisory Committee. It was the work of the Committee, not any one individual. The Committee voted on it and sent it to the CRB. The CRB discussed it in emails, by phone and then at the conference call meeting. The CRB then voted to submit it under "What do you think", rather than as a recommended rule change. If you have any comments, other than what a bunch of aholes those that support it, or those that don't support it are, please post them to crbscca.com

wheel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wheel

The item in Fastrack originated in the F/SR Advisory Committee. It was the work of the Committee, not any one individual.

---

Jim, you don't have your facts straight. Stan

Stan:
I'm sure myself and many other people on the thread would like to know what happened and understand the process. Could you explain the facts to us?

Thanks,
Jimmy

There is a difference between the individual who authored the proposal, and the members of the FSRAC that brought it before the rest of the committee. None of them seem to wish to identify themselves, and those that know are either on the committee or were most likely told in confidence, which no one wants to betray.

Just a wild thought, would it really be that bad to allow "stress bearing" side panels of a specific dimension? Say, from the main roll hoop to the dash hoop, and xx inches high. In the name of safety, which IIRC is why the floor pan is allowed to be structural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

Stan:
I'm sure myself and many other people on the thread would like to know what happened and understand the process. Could you explain the facts to us?

Thanks,
Jimmy

---

Jim,

Stan already did - refer to post #45...

CC

I don't understand why all the secrecy. This is a race car club not the CIA. I'm still not sure why someone who thought their idea had merit would not stand up and just say
"Here is what I'm proposing and here is why, what do you think" We are a club. This is the class we've chosen to run in. Anyone who is legitimately involved in the class has the right to be heard. We as a group may want a further explaination or clarification from the person or persons who submitted the "What do you think" Idea.

Just my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stephen wilson

Just a wild thought, would it really be that bad to allow "stress bearing" side panels of a specific dimension? Say, from the main roll hoop to the dash hoop, and xx inches high. In the name of safety, which IIRC is why the floor pan is allowed to be structural.

---

That would be a major change in the rules and the direction of the class. The six inch rule allows you to attach side panels strongly enough to provide effective protection, but not so rigidly that you gain an advantage in torsional stiffness over bracing with tubes. If you can bond, fasten, weld, or rivet panels to the frame along their whole perimeter you permit monocoque-like stiffness.

The other issue is ease of repair. Removing and reinstalling a floor pan that is bonded and riveted is already a major job, imagine how difficult it would be to replace a damaged "stress bearing" side panel.

One of the advantages of FF/FC construction is that a tube frame can be built and repaired by your average racer. Adding side panels bolted on six-inch centers doesn't change that, but going to a fully stressed panel construction would. At that point you might as well allow carbon monocoques.

Nathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimh3063

I don't understand why all the secrecy. This is a race car club not the CIA. I'm still not sure why someone who thought their idea had merit would not stand up and just say
"Here is what I'm proposing and here is why, what do you think" We are a club. This is the class we've chosen to run in. Anyone who is legitimately involved in the class has the right to be heard. We as a group may want a further explaination or clarification from the person or persons who submitted the "What do you think" Idea.

Just my 2 cents.

---

Yeah and the funny thing is, ya don't even need to be involved (legitimately or otherwise!) in the class to comment, just a member of the club.

Crazy, in-it?

You'd think that folks who don't have a real interest in the outcome of any particular decision would refrain from commenting in an official manner.

Quote:

---

If you can bond, fasten, weld, or rivet panels to the frame along their whole perimeter you permit monocoque-like stiffness

---

Understood, that why I said limit it to the area covered by the side impact procection rules. One panel, in a single plane, won't create a monocoque. It just seems that we are hamstrung by the rules when it comes to improving side impact protection. I suppose modifying the materials of construction allowed for side impact panels, and keeping the 6" mounting restriction, may be a better idea.

Coop, it makes me almost miss the days when I ran beater stock cars. We'd have a tussle and after the race, we'd head to the back of the tire shed and kick the **** out of each other. When it was done, we'd go get a beer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

You'd think that folks who don't have a real interest in the outcome of any particular decision would refrain from commenting in an official manner.

---

Yeah, if only it was that simple. We went through the same thing with some FV changes...it's hard to distinguish between those that have a direct interest and those that are on the sidelines but want to state their opinion anyway.

Always eager to keep the discussion on technical points....

5 days ago in post #189 i asked:
"Anybody have a good argument (either based on engineering or safety) why the bottom of the chassis, if it is two inches more or less above the bottom of the car (the Declared Reference Plane), needs to be parallel to the bottom of the car?"

Still no answer. :confused:

Once we get some discussion on that point, i have a second question:

Why do fixtures have to be "metal" in this revision? For a while now the rules have said they could be "non-ferrous".

Still curious in Panacea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stephen wilson

Understood, that why I said limit it to the area covered by the side impact procection rules. One panel, in a single plane, won't create a monocoque. It just seems that we are hamstrung by the rules when it comes to improving side impact protection. I suppose modifying the materials of construction allowed for side impact panels, and keeping the 6" mounting restriction, may be a better idea.

---

How so, exactly? I don't follow you here.

It was talked about in detail on the "side panels and other upgrades" thread, but for starters:

Quote:

---

A few people have inquired about adding side panels to their car for additional intrusion protection. Unfortunately, that other thread got locked just before I could respond.

Additional side panels attached on 6" or greater centers of various materials have been tried by different people many years ago and were rejected as being illegal, and the wording of the pertinent rules have not changed in the meantime.

Essentially, the current rules do not allow ANY additional add-on panels between the frame and the bodywork (regardless of method of fastening), nor any substitution of materials from those listed for the allowed methods, and the CoA ruling has upheld this opinion.

Because of that, even the suggested kevlar panels ty-wrapped in place would not be legal at this time - whether or not their use has been ignored is not relevant as to their legality.

We have suggested many times over many years that the side protection lower limits be raised, and even added a slight change to the wording in the rules proposal to at least allow BOTH methods to be used, but the proposal has been shelved by the CRB for the moment.

My suggestion is for the members to revisit this issue in a clear and concise manner as a group. Many possible methods are available to add side protection without adding anything to the chassis structural stiffness, IF that is desired in order to not obsolete the older cars. I hope by late spring to be able to set up and test a couple of such attachment methods (pendulum impact tests) to verify the soundness and viability as pertains to older designs.

Further, the rules can be rewritten so as to allow specific additional methods and materials, in which case it is up to the car owner whether or not to spend the time and money for such upgrades.

It's time for everyone to stop bitching and whining about what you cannot do and start working on revamping the rules so as to allow the long-overdue upgrades

---

How about a link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

Always eager to keep the discussion on technical points....

5 days ago in post #189 i asked:
"Anybody have a good argument (either based on engineering or safety) why the bottom of the chassis, if it is two inches more or less above the bottom of the car (the Declared Reference Plane), needs to be parallel to the bottom of the car?"

Still no answer. :confused:

Once we get some discussion on that point, i have a second question:

Why do fixtures have to be "metal" in this revision? For a while now the rules have said they could be "non-ferrous".

Still curious in Panacea.

---

I think I can answer your first question! Well, the reason it has to be parallel to the bottom of the car is because the Citation has it parallel ;) they did not think of it in the first place and I guess some how through some secret hand shake the new proposal is forcing the Radon to look like an ant eater AKA a Citation.

I think the debate over rules should start with a basic foundation that is centered around some principles that help grow the class / classes and bring many much needed improvements to the cars.

[1] If we [racers] and the manufactures can not agree that FF, FC & FB should all be the same platform you are seriousaly running up the cost in all three classes for ZERO payoff. Like Steve L said, we all speak the same language here. If this is the case, allow a car builder to have a chance to work in three classes without completely recreating the wheel.The pie is way to small as it is, quit making rules that cut the pie to scraps the dog wont even touch.

[2] Be open to the fact that materials and ways of manufacturing have advanced a little from the 1970's......., and at the same time the classes will not support turn key 100k cars. There is middle ground here and that's where all three classes need to be. Not long ago you needed to be a full blown PROFESSIONAL race team to build QUALITY composite anti-intrusion panels. Now guy's build them in there garage at night as a hobby. Again the classes are NOT tub, or monocoques. The 6" rule is a good one, but we need to be "OK" with the fact when you Sheet or Panel a frame it becomes stronger. It does get tricky when you cross the line between using the panels as a Safety/Cost Savings argument VS. you require them to make the car faster.

[3] There is so many smart, talented people here with what it takes to make this happen. OTOH, we have a bunch wolfs in sheep's clothing with only self serving interest.
It's not hard to tell them apart if you look close, and I'm sure most are good people. Just don't allow them to decide the path of OUR class.


Rob Nicholas
FC/F-2000 #89
Member #268431

Quote:

---

How about a link?

---

I wasn't sure how, let's try this.

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43071

I agree with everything Rob said.

Unfortunately, it's probably too late to keep the classes based on a common chassis. The FB rules have less restrictive floor pan and undertray rules, so if you fully exploit them your chassis won't be legal for FF/FC. The FB rules allow much wider sidepods and floors, which is a big aero advantage.

The FB rules also have restrictions on the structural use of composites, while the FF/FC rules don't.

A raised nose increases the height of the CG in the front of the car, which decreases mechanical grip. The potential aero advantage may make up for this in FC, although it is yet to be seen. The same is probably not true for FF, where the undertray is more restricted.

Not sure how to solve these issues without pandering to some of those wolves Rob mentions (I'm assuming he doesn't consider me one of them, which might be a big assumption!).

Nathan

ok, I will bite....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

Always eager to keep the discussion on technical points....

5 days ago in post #189 i asked:
"Anybody have a good argument (either based on engineering or safety) why the bottom of the chassis, if it is two inches more or less above the bottom of the car (the Declared Reference Plane), needs to be parallel to the bottom of the car?" Because if you do not keep them parallel then you can shape the space and get more aero downforce. But if you are forced to keep them even no advantage.

Still no answer. :confused:

Once we get some discussion on that point, i have a second question:

Why do fixtures have to be "metal" in this revision? For a while now the rules have said they could be "non-ferrous". Because I just bought more stocks in the metals sector. Now if we continue to allow non-ferrous brackets, metal usage will fall dramatically and I wont have as much money to race on. Besides, how many cf bell housings do you think will be sold????

Still curious in Panacea.

---

John,
I think you will find this is the thread for innuendo and lies. If you would like to have a productive conversation you will probably need to start your own thread.

If this is about side impact protection allow any material to be attached between the bodywork and frame but only "just"... ie, with zip ties. A large piece of aluminum with carbon or kevlar sandwiched that hits the frame rails but it zip tied would help prevent intrusion but offer no structural improvement. If the aluminum was thin there would not be much of a weight gain nut it would offer a huge improvement in safety. It could have zip ties every 2"!