Quote:
Originally Posted by
rperry
1.) 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).
--Carbon is prohibited for stress bearing chassis panels, but by the GCR a panel may not be a chassis panel depending on how it is mounted....
It is correct to say that carbon is prohibited for stress bearing panels, but that does not tell the entire story. Carbon is prohibited in the chassis. Period.
It is not correct to say that how a panel is mounted is what determines if it is a chassis panel. A panel's function determines if it is a chassis panel.
For instance the side impact protection panels are chassis panels that are specifically not allowed to be fastened on greater than 6" centers.
yeah
Quote:
3.) Yes, a March 2013 ruling. An after the fact clarification/change. An addition to the rules that was not previously there.
It was a March 2013 ruling on the 2012 rules. It was absolutely not a rule change. The 8.1.4 process does not contain any provision for making a rule change and the COA lacks the authority. Rule changes are made by the BOD.
In accordance with the GCR, I asked specific questions about the 2012 FF/FC construction rules and received specific answers applicable to the 2012 FF/FC construction rules. These answers came from the people within the SCCA that have the power to interpret the rules. As a result, we now have a final answer on whether or not the Radon is legal per the 2012 GCR. It is not.
Absolutely nothing was added to the rules and absolutely nothing was decided by the COA that contradicts the previous rulings that Nathan received. Nathan has previously recognized the authority of the COA on this. Do you?
BTW- a clarification has to be after the fact as it clarifies something else that is existing.
Quote:
Yes, it does, because that is how language works.
Actually, langauge doesn't work like this. When you make such a bold claim, you should back it up with facts. Maybe you could get an expert opinion? I have heard engineers be accused of being overly literal before, but your argument takes that to a new level. Even Nathan didn't try to take it to that level, he appealed to the authority of industry groups. He was just wrong about what those industry groups say.
Catfish? Butterfly? Honeymoon?
Quote:
Flesh or water or chicken do not contain substantial iron, and are thus non-ferrous. Now that is so obvious, that saying non-ferrous becomes superfluous, which is why cookbooks don't call for non ferrous chicken. It would sound goofy if they did, but it wouldn't be factually incorrect. In fact, ALL chicken, air, and carbon fiber is non-ferrous by nature, so people tend to omit the non ferrous part. This casual omission has no bearing on the fact that carbon fiber ultimately is non ferrous by virtue of not containing iron.
You continue to make this argument that everything in the world breaks down into two categories. It doesn't do your side any good. There are an infinite number of variations on this and all of them are equally silly. It is not unusual to expect that we use words in the same manner they are used in engineering.
You guys missed. It happens.
Quote:
Metal alloys are far more likely to contain iron, so often you see non-ferrous used to differentiate between those that do and don't. All your google searching proves that people use ferrous/nonferrous a lot when describing metals, but none of them prove that carbon fiber isn't non ferrous.
They don't prove that because it is logically impossible to prove a negative. My google searching certainly proves that it is incredibly rare to see the word nonferrous used to describe anything but metal.
You make the claims about the English Langauge and how words are used in engineering. It is up to you to back them up.
For example:
-I claimed that nonferrous is not used to describe anything but metals in engineering and provided proof
-I claimed that the SCCA defines nonferrous in accordance with the way that the word is used in engineering industry and provided proof
Quote:
So there are two conclusions from that:
1.) plastic contains iron
2.) plastic does not contain iron, but this was so clear that it didn't need to be stated
You ignore my entire argument about the use of nonferrous in the GCR and come up with that?
The most immediate fallacy that jumps out is false dichotomy. You present those two options like they are the only choices, when they are not. Again, you aren't doing your side of the argument any favors. You again present nothing to support the idea of your car being legal.
The obvious third option is that the GCR uses nonmetallic to refer to plastics or carbon fiber because that is the correct term for those. It does not use the term nonferrous because that would not be the correct context for the word.
Quote:
Great PR spin on "email from one person."
It is an entirely appropriate way to characterize the email from that person. Do you deny any of what they had to say?
Quote:
You can talk it up as much as you want, but it's the opinion of one person communicated through email. It is not an official standard of any professional organization. Stop trying to pass it off as an industry standard, and there will likely never be one do to the all encompassing nature of a term like nonferrous.
It is not opinion to say that neither ASME, ASM, or ASTM use the word nonferrous to refer to nonmetallics. That has been confirmed by multiple sources. Given that the word is never used in the way that you are trying to use it, breaking down to the "that's just your opinion" argument is not even supported by reality.
Quote:
A single email from an individual is exactly what it is. But I'm glad you have finally backpeddled from "industry standard" to "expert opinion."
I didn't backpedal on anything. It was an expert opinion on the industry standard for how the word is used. You intentionally mischaracterized what I said. Again, that is not an appropriate way to make your point.
Everything above is a discussion of things that are decided. Nonferrous is limited to metals in the GCR. There is no way around this. No matter how much noise is created, a carbon fiber shock mount was illegal per the 2012 GCR. Radon should have asked the COA for a compliance ruling on this.
Quote:
The rule is there to make the radon impossible to modify and nothing else. Without this rule, the carbon parts would simply be replaced by aluminum ones. This rule insures that no real safety panels can ever be installed on an FC, as any safety panel would have to be mounted structurally.
At least we are moving into a discussion on things that are not already set in stone.
Does it mean that you couldn't just replace the carbon brackets with aluminum brackets? Would it even be a frame exterior panel?
There is always the option of replacing it with a welded in tube.
Quote:
Are you saying the rollhoop is illegal based on your interpretation of bulkhead?
I didn't say that the roll hoop was illegal at all. Assuming that you used legal materials and a PE signed off on it, then I think that it is legal. Why would you even say that?
Quote:
The rear rollhoop ends at shoulder level, and does not have stressed skin construction. You are saying the floor should be defined by a point at shoulder level? Huh?
The rear roll hoop ends at shoulder level. You guys are not the first person to do things that way. Every late model Van Diemen has the roll hoop end at shoulder height. The Ralt FA cars use a bolt on roll hoop as well. I did not say that the rear roll hoop bulkhead ends at that height. The rear roll hoop bulkhead continues along the braces to the floor.
Where would you say the rear roll hoop bulkhead is on a modern Van Diemen?
You are using circular logic to try to define the rear roll hoop. You argue that the floor is legal because the rear roll hoop bulkhead is forward of the fuel cell. Then you argue that the rear roll hoop bulkhead has to be forward of the fuel cell because it is the only one that can define the floor.
The GCR tells us what bulkhead will be used to define the floor. It is not the bulkhead made up by the roll hoop ahead of the rear roll hoop. It is the rear roll hoop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Daryl DeArman
In my little pea-brain I accepted Ferrous and Non-Ferrous to apply only to metals and metal alloys before the CoA spoke. Turns out I was "right".
/devils' advocate mode: since the GCR says (paraphrasing) all allowed modications are listed herein, if it doesn't say you can you can't.
Why say someting can be made of any non-ferrous material and then prohibit carbon fiber IF carbon fiber isn't non-ferrous to begin with? It only muddies the waters.
Because the FF and FC rules kept getting changed independently of each other. It was muddying the waters. But, the result was that there were two prohibitions on the Radon carbon fiber pieces in FC and only one prohibition on similar carbon fiber pieces in FF. None of that is an excuse for the mistake that the Radon guys made. They had two reasons to know better. I'm really glad I don't have to explain that one to their customers.
Quote:
If you google non-ferrous 99.995% of the pages come back with the term "non-ferrous metal", if non-ferrous only applies to metals/metal alloys why add the word "metal"? Doing so implies that without the word metal added to the phrase that non-ferrous applies to something other than metals.
Actually, if you google nonferrous, the results come back referencing metals. The word metal is often left off. It is pretty common to see things like "nonferrous filler rod" or references to a nonferrous pressure vessel wrapped in a nonmetallic composite. So, it is not correct to say that the searches come back with the term "nonferrous metal."
Quote:
Just because "WE" all knew what non-ferrous meant, or what the rule meant. Doesn't mean that's what the rule said.
That is a reasonable argument for submitting a clarification. After the March 2013 fastrack, we know what the rule said. No more room for discussion, as evidenced in this thread.
The absolute bottom line is that the Radon was not legal per the 2012 GCR and the rules change did not make the car illegal.
So far, we have had no arguments in this thread to support the Radon being legal per the 2012 GCR. I think that is noteworthy. We have had discussions of whether or not nonferrous includes chicken in the engineering industry, but we have firm decisions from the COA that tell us that nonferrous is restricted to metals in the 2012 GCR. I posted the decision of the stewards days ago and no one has tried to dispute it.
After years of arguing, discussing, and wondering, we know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Valet
Josh may have won the internet earlier but I think the last couple of posts have used up the internet.
A whole lot of 1's and 0's have been inconvenienced by this thread.
