Maybe the only well-named manufacturer is Swift.
Printable View
Maybe the only well-named manufacturer is Swift.
Actually, Citation was a Kentucy Derby winner, and one of the most famous race horses of the last century. Cessna named their line of bizjets "Citation." A citation can be (and is) a positive thing in most cases--such as a Citation for Valor.
Larry Oliver
I had two buddies in high school that had hand me down Citations. The chevy version. Hatchback. Not a great car but it got us from point A to point B.
I think the Radon could be called the Picaso. Apparently it's a work of art, The outside is the inside, and yesterday we found out that the front crush structure is apparently in the sidepod.
Chris, lets bring the project to light, how many investors are there and who are they? Seems like every one is walking on eggshells. It's always good to find out what the agenda of people is, don't you think?
What's your agenda Mr Foschi? what's Baytos's agenda? Lathrop's ? Mine?
It's none of anybodies business !
Radon's agenda is to build race cars. I'd call them a very rare and endangered species.
But hey, continue with the extermination.
I know my next car will be a Stohr, Novakar/Novak conversion or Radon. :thumbsup:
It would be nice to see an F1000 car by Radon but the way this thing is going I do not think it would be anytime soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stohr
Call me Mike,
I have always had a problem with BS. This has BS all over it and my BS detector went nuts reading all of the pro Radon posts. You know, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Their reason for being = cheaper, easier, safer, BS. If the SCCA dosen't pass it there are other places to run = BS & where? If they don't pass it FC is over no one will ever ever build another one = BS. Inside is outside = BS. They don't want to make the other cars obsolete? Why not, isn't that why anyone would want to build a car? = BS
So if it all seems like their words do not make sense, I say to myself, "Self what else could the agenda be?"
As far as my agenda goes, I'm in it for the truth, justice and the American way, like a grounded Superman. My interest stems from my prior experience in F2000 for many years. I love the class, always have, and from what I can see some guys are f-en it all up while I've been away. I have no interest in any team, chassis manufacturer or series. I think this should have been handled differently, Radon should/could have presented detail drawings way before building anything, instead of building then trying to make everyone else feel like they are the bad guys trying to clarify the rules. It seems pretty intentional that an easy process was skirted in an effort to sneak something new by that only fits todays rules when you distort the meaning of words to the extreme.
As far as everyone elses agenda, you'll have to ask them.
i agree. i'm happy to see a new car. i wish there were more. we all try to maximize the rules. nobody gets into racing to lose or go slow, except maybe foschi. but i think this car could have been introduced in a better fashion...ric
....come on mike, you love the rain
And another thing,
When Chris C. was going over all the other things that should/could make it fast ( suspension and aero etc), that is what they should be doing. Bringing in this carbon fiber crap is just fuel for the fire. To me, it is sort of disrespecting the other car builders that are not even close to as smart as some of us. They would never have thought about this stuff, they are just ordinary.
This reminds me of the Mosque nightmare in NYC at ground zero. They know it's pissing everyone off but they have an agenda that superceeds the feelings of the little people. If they would just move it to show a little understanding it would be let go by the people who are offended.
If you built your car leaving the carbon crap out and it were fast no one on here would give a rats ass, I think then you would sell cars and even get a pat on the back, maybe.
So you are for truth, justice and the American Way - except when somebody wants to build something on his own property.
Sorry, but if I have to chose between the BS of an old race promoter and the BS of a race car builder, I'll take the builder any time :D
Maybe it's because I was born in the 80's, but every time something fresh and different comes along there seems to be this old man stand on the porch with a shotgun get off my property mentality. It's 2010, we should start embracing new ideas and catch up to the rest of the world. New(er) engines, newer safety cell designs, newer impact attenuation designs should all start becoming the norm, rather than stretching the rules and pissing everyone off.
The thought that things are moving forward towards the 21st century is "messing everything up" is scary to me.
Sure things could have been presented differently, but honestly I think (and hope) this should spark a deep review of what should and should not be allowed in new cars.
-Bill Valet
You young punk, who needs that carbon crap! or that electronic crap! what about those triple adjustable shocks, who needs 'em? Heck, a good Truffault friction damper on leaf springs worked just fine in my day :rolleyes:
Lee - I think its a simple question.Is the chassis built within the existing rules or not?I don't think anyone is trying to bypass that ,are they?Complain about the sanctioning body and its rules and then work to get them to change the specifics you think are issues. Bashing the sanctioning body is easy but unnecessary.If it is just a problem with carbon fiber panels why not use aluminum?
Sure there have been myriad advancements to make us go faster, but the advancements to make us safer pale in comparison (in lower level forumlae). I do understand that it's inevitable to want to spend as much as possible to go fast, and disregard our own safety though. That will never change. Why spend X amount on safety when I can spend X amount on gaining 2 tenths?
I do admire your humor and ability to get a point across though Lee!
-Bill Valet
"it is just a problem with carbon fiber panels why not use aluminum?" because reproducing the carbon shape in aluminum would cost 100x more.
Look, the Swift DB1 was totally illegal, completely trashed the intent of the rules, and yet the tribe gathered and approved it.
Now in 2010 the tribe has gathered and thrown Radon to the wolves.
We all know the arguement has nothing to do with safety or cost, the Radon excels in both areas. Chassis cost is an insignificant part of a new car cost anyway.
I'm coming from an earlier time, when race car technology progressed every year. I guess it's really nice that a guy can keep racing his DB1 for 30 years and still be competitive, but that's not racing to me.
I am in favor of a class like FC having spec areas: like max tire size, Ford engine, overall width and length, but let other areas progress with the times. Yes, older cars will go to vintage, but shouldn't they?
This is just my opinion, I realize it is no longer the majority opinion. That is why I'm doing other things.
:redflag: :redflag: :redflag:
Ok, this thread has fallen to name calling and some less than veiled personal character attacks. That needs to stop immediately, or this thread gets shut down and the offenders will have their posting rights restricted.
This topic can be discussed intelligently without resorting to mud slinging.
WOW, I feel violated. I spill my guts and you kick me in the nuts :o.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stohr
My post does not say how I feel about the mosque, but the fact is it will most likely not be built at that location in our life time, maybe just like the Radon.
Sorry, I've had bad experiences with certain race promoters. I don't know Mr Foschi and shouldn't generalize.
However, I didn't realize it was possible to embarrass a New Yorker, and hey, when I put a smiley face on my comment it means it's not to be taken too seriously !
How much does a Radon FC cost?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillJohnson
With or without the carbon package? ;)
Less with the cf panels ;)
Hi Bill:Quote:
Originally Posted by BillJohnson
We plan to sell a roller Radon Rn.10 for less than a new Elan/Van Diemen FC car, which is $60k, and hope to be able to sell it for considerably less than that.
If the rules are changed to allow our car but require modifications, that may affect the cost.
Nathan
P.S. That price includes the carbon cockpit protection panels, carbon nose, carbon tail cone, and carbon radiator inlet ducts/impact attenuators.
Doug,Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
I don't know if you know Mike F., but this ain't nothing, Mike ran a tight ship in FF2000 back when it was really tough to win on ovals or road courses and put up with our BS and our creativity much more than anything close to this. Actually, go buy a T shirt from his website and you'll understand were he's coming from (A university you may want to go to, as a hint)... a lot more than just a promoter, Lee has no idea, only because he doesn't know him...
This thread is so much better than watching a competitive club regional race...or court tv...:D
(Mike, you can send me a check next week or a free shirt, I think B. Lobenberg already bought one...LOL)
Gents;
A few hours before my shunt that ended a robust and insatiable thirty-nine year passion for racing, I quietly remarked to Rick III that this is supposed to be fun. Not only on the track, in the paddock, at Siebkens, in the shop or on Apex, it is simply supposed to be fun.
As such, I implore all to take a deep breath, grab another cup of Joe, and enjoy whatever it is that flips you switch.
Right wrong or indifferent, I personnally have come to admire and respect EVERYONE on Apex - unconditionally. But it make me ill-at-east to see the character of this site (read: the people that make it what it is) mired by both language and attitude.
Please, let's throttle back a bit and get on with it.
VERY RESPECTFULLY
Iverson II
Thanks for the plug George,Quote:
Originally Posted by George Main
FoschiU.com is the site.
George all of the money goes to to Sam Schmidt Foundation, so don't expect anything in the mail quite yet.
Why does the "carbon fiber crap" have you panties in such a twaddle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Foschi
While everyone's busy talking about the "intent" of the rules, why don't we talk about the "intent" of the rule banning carbon fiber components in FC cars? That rule was written in 1986, which was 24 years ago. At that time, carbon fiber was expensive. REALLY expensive. Labor was cheap, and nothing was manufactured in China. The reason for the rule was to prevent you from using exotic and very expensive materials in your FC chassis.
Now, it's 2010. Carbon fiber is cheap. As cheap as fiberglass. It's easy to form into panels, it's much less labor intensive than fitting a lot of tubes, and it's much, much safer in the event of a crash. The places in which we used the carbon fiber are, in our opinion, completely legal per the written 2010 rules, as we've said over and over. We think that an unbiased SCCA official will agree, and several national Tech inspectors have done just that. We're more than willing to hang our hat on the fact that our car is legal per the 2010 rules.
As a company, in business to sell a product, we are not required to share with you every technical innovation of our product, no differently than Coke shares its formula with Pepsi.
We are also not required to share with a list of the people that have invested in our company - that's our private business, and none of yours. I will tell you that the only people that have posted on this thread that have any financial interest in RadonSport are Nathan and me. I kind of doubt that all of the other posters are sharing with us the reasons and motiviations for them having their particular position on this topic, either.
Cheers,
Chris C.
I've talked to a lot of people at Mid-Ohio this weekend to try to understand any concerns about our new car. I can tell you it's a lot easier to discuss some of these issues in person, but I've made myself available via email and telephone to anyone as well.
First of all, as I've said over and over again, the cockpit protection panels provide no competitive advantage. They make the car safer and less expensive to manufacture, and I think they look nicer, but they don't make the car faster.
Second, the most recent of the photos I posted earlier was taken over two months ago. I'm not trying to be coy or unnecessarily secretive when I don't post more recent photos of the car, or ones showing a complete car, I just don't want to provide any more information to those interested in making our call illegal.
In my opinion, and that of everyone else who's seen the complete car, there aren't any additional controversial aspects of the design, but there are several innovations that I'd like to keep confidential as long as possible. They are the type of features that people react to by saying "Ah! Cool idea...why didn't someone else think of that" as opposed to "you can't do that!"
Nathan
Will you have the car on display at this years Run-offs?
1. I don't wear panties, I go commando now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Camadella
2. When you were in the Boy Scouts 3 years ago, and you were in the Pinewood Derby, did you make your car out of something other than wood? Then when they wouldn't let you play, start telling them that Al Gore says that the earth is going to explode because the trees are getting cut down, and the rules of the derby were made before Bam Bam, you know Barnie Rubbles kid, was in the boy Scouts, etc. etc.
3. If all you youngens want to change the rules to permit carbon and the like have at it, I've been told by many teams the Fran Am car was one of the best cars that ran over here. But.... don't ever think that is going to make a car cheaper. And the whole safer thing? Name me 5 people that have been seriously hurt in a FF or FC in the last 20 years due to structure failure or tubes collapsing. Carbon fiber is not the cure all for safty in racing, ask Alex Zanardi. I contend that if he were in a tube frame car it would not have split in half like an egg and lost his legs.
4. Your correct about the investors, none of anyones business, just curious. But the silence from some of the people that are known investors, in cash or time, is deafening. you know:RW,AG, PF,GF,
I don't have a dog in this fight...at least not directly, but I can respond to a few of Chris' points here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Camadella
When the rule was written in 1985 (...it went into effect on 1 Jan 86) the average wholesale price of carbon fiber was about $65 a pound (Source), or about 50 times that of fiberglass, so Chris' main point above is technically correct.
That said, by 1985 carbon fiber was already welcome in the even lower-spec Formula Vee class, so the argument that cf posed some class-killing quantum jump in cost is tenuous at best. Nevertheless, the Adhoc Committee recommended prohibiting cf and kevlar. FF participation was in free fall by '85 anyway, due to rapidly escalating costs and competition from Spec Renault, so presumably the Committee felt the prohibition was justified. In any case, the recommendation was passed.
Not quite. Cf is very much cheaper today than 25 years ago (current wholesale price is about $8/lb), but that's still nearly twice the price of fiberglass. S-glass runs about $15/yd for 6-oz, versus about $25/yd for 6-oz cf. E-glass is about half the price of s-glass, but is not as good in motorsports applications as s-glass because it is not as stiff as s-glass.Quote:
Now, it's 2010. Carbon fiber is cheap. As cheap as fiberglass.
Where cf comes into the fore is that for a given piece (say, an engine cover), one can typically delete one layer and still have the same stiffness as with a glass piece. That directly translates to lower cost (and slightly lighter weight).
In my considerable experience a typical FF/FC engine cover takes about 2 yds of cloth per layer and is laid up from three layers of fg, that's 6 yds x $15 for the s-glass, plus 6 x 6 oz of resin at $1/oz, or $126 in materials. In cf that's 4 x $25 for cloth + 4 x 6oz resin = $124 in materials, plus the labor saved by not having to wet out that third layer. So, compared to s-glass, carbon fiber is cheaper by the difference in labor. The numbers for e-glass are 6 yds of cloth at $8/yd = $48 + $36 = $84 in materials, or about $40 cheaper than the materials in cf, so the net cost is about the same when you factor in the labor costs.
Clearly, in terms of the finished product cost, cf is now days no more expensive than fiberglass...unless you pay your labor nothing. The argument that cf itself raises the cost bar in FF is simply not true unless you are making your own bodywork, and then ONLY if you use the absolutely cheapest boat-glass.
PS - The prices I quote for materials reflect my as-delivered cost in whole dollars for 100 yd rolls of cloth and barrels of resin we use at Dauntless. YMMV. :)
More than 30 years ago I did use wood, but I didn't use Pine (as some may have suggested was the intent). I also used materials other than wood in areas such as the axle, wheels, finish and ballast. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Foschi
Kinda funny Daryl! A couple months back we had a corporate Boy Scout Rocket Derby. We were going for light weight and large ID, because a 4-rubber band motor knots up so much that there is significant friction between the motor and the inside of the tube. The rules say you can only use what's in the kit (we bought six), except for paint.
The kits weren't bored with much accuracy, so as we turned the bodies we'd have heavy wall on one side, and it would break thru on another. So, we bought a solid block of balsa, milled it to the same dimensions, bored the inside, made a turning fixture, and turned the outside. It was so thin you could see through it. We then "painted" it inside and out with Aeropoxy, oven cured, and then polished that, creating in effect, a composite tube.
We sort of "bent" the rules. The guys that won used a prop off a guillow airplane kit. More pitch and span - now that's cheating!
Axles & wheels are a spec design, can only use those supplied in the regulation BSA kit. I believe pine is also required but I'd have to double check the rules - it's been awhile :rolleyes:. I've had to reject more then one car that did not meet the rules... and "blue printing is allowed :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quickshoe
Pinewood Derby is also a Cub Scout event, not a Boy Scout ;), which means it's usually a car built by the parent if it's a winner :(. Ballast is free in material and location. Correct location can make a winner, incorrect a loser.... also depends on the track used. Gee, kind of like real race cars isn't it??
What does this have to do with the subject of the tread? Just goes to show given any set of rules and someone will try and push the envelope. BSA has the advantage that most of it's rules are straight forward and not open to interpretation, they are also not a club.
We always found that it was how you wound the rubber band, making sure the propeller mount was correctly aligned and using the correct lubricant on the rubber band made a world of difference. Lots of testing too....;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
How many of you built a test track to teach the kids the importance and tediousness of testing.
Brian
Being Cubmaster I had access to our pack's track anytime.... I'd also made it available to Den's so the kids could test while building. So yes, testing and experimenting was part of our program. But the track we used for District Championship was way different than any other I'd ever seen so it took the first year to find out what was fast and what wasn't. The next year my Tiger Cub son won the district, kind of pissed off a lot of Webelos ;). I think he picked the color and decal's, I spent a lot of time on it :rolleyes:, Tiger Cubs was a "adult and child" program so it was within the "spirit of the rules".Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
I built our Space Derby track, so was only natural to test extensively with it. That's where you figure out how much is too little or too much on the rubber bands... also tested different lubricants (as I recall a Wurth Silicon spray worked best).
Well Nathan, you see what you're up against. Half the members think steel tube frames are as strong as carbon tubs, and the other half drifted off into memories of the pinewood derby days of their youth. ;)
Lee, I was kind of enjoying the break!
Got back home from Mid-Ohio last night and started programming our new cockpit protection panels. Fortunately, I had a a bunch of six inch thick 7075-T6 plate kicking around, so the machine is running the right side right now...looks like about twelve and half hours of machine time, so the aluminum version shouldn't cost more than $6,000 or so per side.
In the meantime, the guys out at Wichita are making some cockpit protection panels out of Zylon. Those will only cost about $3500, but I figured they might ban Zylon at some point, so I've got the aluminum panels as backup.
;)
Nathan
You might want to consider a Plan B (or C). Just in case aluminum is banned, remember the glory days of plywood racecars built by Frank Costin. How about nice laminated wood intrusion panels, or something that looks like wood ;)
Funny thing.
20 or more years ago, CF was allowed as cockpit surrounds around the driver's head and some other areas back in the days when the water cooled SV's cars were part of FC.
I was reminded when I saw the Griffith that Denny Sideri drives this past weekend and IIRC, the ANson had some sort of composite structure in that area with the majority of the tub being aluminum honeycomb.
How times change
Just an observation of irony.
Is wood technically not a composite material?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stohr
Nature's composite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ananth K
Thanks ... Jay Novak
on "vacation" this thread will make for a good read later!
Wow, what a thread. Took the laptop to the lake this weekend to follow the Mid Ohio show and filled in the rest of the time reading this extensive discussion.
One thing to keep in mind for those that may be reading, contemplating a future in FC, wondering exactly which car and which "wizzy" bits will be needed to run competitively, and, feel a little squeemish (is that a word) about the decision of which way to go.
At the Glen and again at Mid Ohio, some of the fastest laps were turned by a '99 Van Dieman, narrow track and in what appears to be rather "stock" configuration. So, for the new blood I hope is out there and wanting to run FC, unless Grandpa's trust fund has seven digits and you're on the signature line at the bank, prepare what you have and spend the extra cash on tires and seat time. When your butt is ready, go find the fastest thing being built...but work on the most important part first, your skills. Then when you climb into a new Radon, Firman, Piper, Van Dieman or whatever comes along it'll be a piece of cake.
Keep in mind there are some really sharp people out there developing race cars, developing race car parts and evolving the FC marque, don't let these discussions move you away from the class. It is these very types of conversations that should tell you the class is alive and very very well.
Just my 2 cents from an old, broke, wannabe at the front driver who wants to see the class count grow at all venues. Should have spent my money more wisely on seat time, seat time, seat time.
Richard L
Richard, these are wise words and worth more than 2 cents, if there is one single factor in winning, its being able to drive the damm thing, and that skill is honed by seat time, there are guys who are "naturals" but even they must put the time in :checkered:
Roger
Can someone please explain to me what aspects of the new Firman F2000 car they see as potentially illegal?
Besides barge boards I don't see anything else.
I've already tried calling the SCCA and left messages seeking clarification. Been waiting more than a week for a response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
The FB rules allow stepped noses. FC does not but the restriction can be circumvented fairly easily. The restrictions are found in the chassis rules. I am told that this is also an issue with the Radon but they can easily comply with the rule at minimum cost. There was a car called the BRD that showed how to fool the rules.
I've been reading the current GCR for FF construction and D7 section A states that the floor can be constructed in multiple sections. No where that I can find does it state that stepped floors are illegal. I also couldn't find anything about stepped noses being illegal. But then again the rules are scattered all over the book.....holy dis-organization Batman....it's a full time job just looking for stuff.
Can someone point to the exact section in the current GCR where is states stepped floors and raised noses are illegal in FC?
Doesn't the VD Zetec have a stepped nose of a sorts? What about the Mygale?
The proposed rules allow stepped or sloped floors but seems to only permit them to be 1" high.
If the proposed rules go into effect then you got to allow raised noses with stepped floors don't you? You can't have one without the other can you?
This is taken from the most current GCRQuote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
D.7.a second paragraph, FF rules:
A stress bearing floor pan constructed from a minimum of .060 inch heat treated aluminum sheet or 18 gauge steel sheet is required. At a minimum, it shall extend from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. Its curvature shall not exceed one inch. The floor pan may be constructed in multiple sections.
Your second question is in the same place:
D.7. Chassis/Frame
[FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers]Formula Ford 1986 construction requirements as of January 1, 1986 as revised January 1, 2010. All new Formula Ford cars are to be built to these specifications covered in D.6 and D.7. (Also required for Formula Continental.) [/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]