Thanks.
I read both those sections.
By "curvature" I take that as meaning it must have straight floors. Not that is disallows stepped floors.
Also nothing about barring raised or stepped noses.
If that was the intention shouldn't it just say so?
Printable View
Thanks.
I read both those sections.
By "curvature" I take that as meaning it must have straight floors. Not that is disallows stepped floors.
Also nothing about barring raised or stepped noses.
If that was the intention shouldn't it just say so?
I wholeheartedly agree that the rules are a cluster, having to skip all over hell's half acre.
Thomas,
I think what you were looking for: In the FC Section
B.2. Bodywork and Airfoils
The use of “ground effects” is limited. Deviation of the undertray may not exceed 2.54cm (1”) in the area between the rearmost point of the front tire to the frontmost point of the rear tire.
So there is a difference clearly between an undertray and a floor. :confused:
The "controlled" floor runs from the rollhoop bulkhead to the front bulkhead.
The undertray has to not deviate more than 1" between the rear of the front tire, and the front of the rear tire. And because the undertray is controlled in the bodywork section, obviously it is bodywork and not chassis nor floor. Got it?
The floor may run farther forward of the front bulkhead (if you have a bulkhead ahead of the front bulkhead, see definition of front bulkhead), and even farther back than the rollhoop bulkhead.
The undertray may go way up front somewhere, and way out back past the centerline of the rear axle, distances explained in other paragraphs.
Ask Ralph... obviously he knows. ;)
I think that is why there was a rewrite started years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
It is just the frame and the under body between the front and rear tires that have the 1" restriction (FF the restriction is between wheel center lines).
Thanks for pointing out that section. I had read that B2 section in FC earlier and just re-read it. But still don't see how raised floor is illegal.
The sections states: "Deviation of the undertray may not exceed 2.54mm (1") in the area between the rearmost point of the front tire to the frontmost point of the rear tire."
This seems to suggest that forward the rearmost point of the front tire stepped floors (or undertrays) are permitted.
My interpretation is that stepped or curved floors are allowed as long as the total deviation does not exceed 1". Frankly I do not think that this is a complex rule & is easily understood an interpreted. However I have been wrong before. The downside of the rule as written is that you could have a totally curved bottom & it would (could) be very difficult to define any kind of a reference surface to deal with. That is why I think the rule should be clarified so that a standard method of measuring can be used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
Thanks ... Jay Novak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
The frame rules require a belly pan from the front bulkhead to the roll bar that does not deviate more than one inch. Same thing as the undertray but over different parts of the car. For most cars the belly pan is part of the undertray but the belly pan has to be flat to the front bulkhead. A belly pan is not required under the engine. There is a minimum width for the belly pan as well. It is expressed in terms of where the drivers feet go.
Thomas. Yes to what you wrote.
But imagine this:
The metal floor attached to the chassis is flat (less than 1" of deviation) from the rollhoop bulkhead to the front bulkhead... but the chassis in use is inclined upward towards the front say... 10 degrees. Manufacturer's suggested forward rake. ;)
Now attached under that floor is bodywork (aka undertray) that the bottom of which is flat, and horizontal to the ground all the way from the rear of the front tire to the front of the rear tire.
Now you are looking at a Radon. Can't speak for the Firman, haven't seen it.
Cheers.
Jay,
Section D8 Bodywork paragraph d.:
Measurement for compliance of the defined reference area shall be performed as follows:
1. A non-flexible straight-edge bar shall be placed against the lower surface of the reference area in a suitable section (unworn and flat enough to prevent rocking of the bar) from which the bar can be oriented to measure all parts of the reference area. The competitor shall be responsible for the availability and condition of such a surface. The bar shall be of sufficient length to reach all portions of the reference area from that surface.
2. All measurements shall be taken vertically from the bar to the reference area surfaces. The total maximum vertical distance (additive upward and downward) from the bar to any part of the reference area surfaces shall be 2.54 cm. Skid blocks and or rub strips are not included in this measurement.
Of course that is in the bodywork section of Formula Ford... you didn't expect to find it in the chassis section of FC did you now? Having fun yet?
I was aware of the measurent section Froggy. However there is no real definition of the reference surface except that it must prevent the straight edge from rocking. No way that this is a valid definition. What is "rocking", how much is too much etc? This entire definition & it's implementation can be a very subjective thing. The rule as stated makes it too easy to measure it wrong & way to easy to "mis-interpret". Same thing goes for the bottom of the body surfaces as mentioned in your previous post. The rule should simply state that there shall be no deviation greater than 1" from the reference surface (define that too) including both the structural belly pan & the lower body surfaces period. It is my opinion that that is what was really intended by the rules, despite what those with creative minds say & do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Thanks ... Jay Novak
Per Jnovak: It is my opinion that that is what was really intended by the rules, .... :)
It always comes back to "intent". In fact it always comes back to what those great guys in a meeting back in 1986 "intended", and stewards that have made numerous rulings since interpreted as their intentions.
:) :D
We could sure use Art Smith's help about now !
Please pardon this slight tangent.
In a class like FF, what would be the benefit of a raised nose or stepped floor?
From my early reading about race car aerodynamics (many years ago), it seems like those features would pack air under the chassis and cause lift, and/or disrupt flow and cause drag.
Thanks. - Russ.
If you look at all the cars in the padock, you can see how the rule has been interperted. I think that is a reasonable interpertation of what was intended. Even the BRD, which was the first car that I am aware of, confirmed that interpertation when he did the stepped nose on his FC. For many cars the reference surface is the belly pan under the drivers seat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Russ,
The 87+ Reynard had a 1" step in the lower frame rails. The forward segment of the lower frame rails was 1" higher than the remainder. This allowed you to put more rake on the car, and it made an easy place to put rub rails. This stepped area only extended about 18" aft.
Larry Oliver
International Racing Products
I can't find any reference to the "intent" of the rules in the GCR, can someone point out how this is defined?
If, as Steve says, the "intent" of the rules is what every other constructor has done, then why bother designing new cars? FF/FC might as well be spec classes rather than formula classes....which is, apparently, what some would like! ;)
There are many examples, in SCCA and elsewhere, where a designer has figured out how to build a car differently within the rules. That sometimes provides an advantage and sometimes doesn't. The question for the membership of the club is whether to allow innovation within FF/FC or restrict it to the same old approaches. I've expressed my preference.
Nathan
Quote:
Originally Posted by nulrich
I think I would like to make my anti roll bars and blades out of titanium. I maintain that it will be less costly because I can machine the blades and use them without heat treating and finish machining after heat treating. I can't tell what the intention of the titanium prohibition applies to. I think it is only for nuts and bolts.
Lee-
watching this thread from a safe distance has seemed like the rational thing to do; "thanks" for the invitation!!. :confused: I haven't seen Radon Sport's new car, haven't seen detailed technical pictures of their completed car, or haven't seen engineering drawings for their car so it's hard to contribute in a meaningful manner to a "compliance" discussion. as a matter of personal policy I don't support protectionist legislation in Sacramento, Washington DC, or Topeka and in particular legislation that propogates or creates more compliance problems. it's surely no surprise that in my view "intent" has no place in a compliance discussion. I've always viewed the inclusion of "intent" akin to a middle age discussion of how many angels could reside on the head of a pin; pure insanity!!! there are clearly very good reasons why laws, contracts, and engineering specifications in the real world are written in an objectively verifiable manner. imagine the insanity of having a discussion of "intent" with a member of the highway patrol or well intentioned volunteer that proposes to write you a ticket for 63mph in a 70mph posted stretch of highway when you're the only car on the road in clear and dry conditions............. hopefully the proposed changes that spawned this thread and the change(s) to allow aluminum calipers in Ff are NOT approved so we can all get back to our cars, engines, ......... unfortunately it appears based on recent rulings even objectively verifiable rules in the GCR as currently written are not immune from being interpreted by the politicians in a "strained or tortured" manner so rejection of all of these proposals is only the first step.
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
The problem is that the rule book can never be written to address every possible scenario that future engineers will imagine.
I look at it this way - when Brawn GP came out with the "double diffuser", it was by the book, legal. However, according to the majority of the folks who wrote the rule, it flew in the face of what they specifically were trying to stop with the rule. Therefore, the double diffuser, while technically correct, was against the intent of the rule. The difference between Formula 1 and the SCCA is that they could not revise the technical regulations during the Formula 1 season. So even though they knew the double diffuser was something they had tried to outlaw, they could not fix the wording as it was written until after the season (and didn't until the 2011 sporting regs). So yes, in Formula 1, all the talk of intent is pointless and gets you no where since the rules cannot be changed, and as long as you comply with the written rule, you are good to go.
Now let's bust into the SCCA, where rule changes can happen every month. The reason we discuss the INTENT of the rule, is so that we can predict whether or not a clarification to the wording of the rule is necessary to stop that particular innovation. If Formula 1 cannot write a rule book that addresses every possible engineering quirk, how would you expect the SCCA to be able to? By looking at the intent of the rule, we are looking to see if the innovation presented is the type of thing the rule MEANT to stop. If that is the case, the rule needs to be re-written to add clarity and explicitly outlaw the offending device.
The great thing about the SCCA is that we all have the ability to influence which way the rules go, which is why I think it's good for everyone to discuss what the intent of the rules were, if that intent is still applicable and meaningful today, and if perhaps the rule should be changed. There are wayyyyy too many smart people on this message board, so it's no surprise that opinions differ; however, I don't think that should hinder the discussion.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by S Lathrop
Added later: I think Steve wrote this reply with tongue firmly in cheek, as an example of what in general, could be possible with ANY rule, if creative interpretations not in line with the rule's intent, were to be allowed. Steve, if I'm wrong, beat me up...
this is my last post on this as i'm all for new, faster, safer, cars but..... Nathan, every rule has an intent. you know that from when you're a child. it's why they exist.
Steve and Dave,
I think you make a good point. Materials that were feared to be too expensive back in 1986, may not be the case in 2010.
Many materials were banned previously because of a fear of escalating costs. But in many cases those same materials may be actually less expensive to fabricate with today in modern shops, than those allowed.
I would think that if a new titanium ARB selling for less than an older steel one would be a good case in point.
The times they are a changin'. :)
Russ,
There is no "new" advantage to a raised nose or stepped floor.
The splitter and raise nose already exist in late model FC cars. The VD Zetec's and apparently other cars as well.
The stepped floor won't improve aero efficency. The best thing it can provide is if you cut a hole in the floor you can get a really nice stiff breeze up your backside.
...all this tortured struggling and for what? At the end of the day it's just another can with wheels on it.
Apparently the current rules allow both. Whats the big deal? This isn't ground effects or trick diffuser.
A lot of this so called "intent" seems to be another one of those you can't do 'cause I said so'....
.
Thanks, Thomas. I can see advantages if the raised nose helps direct air to tunnels (like in FA), or allows a full width front wing (FC). But when it comes to FF, I was a bit perplexed about how it would be better than one continuous, low surface, directing air over and around rather than to a stepped (draggy?) area under the car. I always thought the more air you kept from going underneath, the more DF and less drag. And a stepped floor goes against "smoothness". :confused:
See Russ, for some of us there lies the rub. FF and FC rules (especially chassis) have been joined at the hip since 1986. Supposedly so the chassis could migrate back and forth, manufacturers only having to build one size fits all. But one is an non-aero class, and the other is much about aero. So it lies to reason that over time one size may not fit all. e.g. What if a chassis builder only wants to build FC chassis.
OBTW, all my studies say the jury is still out as to whether a raised nose really is any benefit in a non-tunnel class. Raising the C/G and increasing frontal area may just not be the way to go.
How does an tech inspector or steward NOT familiar with the class know what the intent of a written rule is?
If I'm new to the class, where is all the "intent" archived?
Brian
As a steward, I am cautioned about trying to determine intent, and to accept the rule as written. Therefore, that's what I do--as best as possible. I read the rule and base my decision upon my reading. I call 'em as I see 'em.
...then I let the Court of Appeals figure it out when it goes to appeal. They have been known to ask the Comp Comm for clarification. It's not unlike the US court system, in which (hopefully) first-level judges leave questions of intent and constitutionality to higher-levels.
FWIW, my record of being reversed upon appeal is very low.
Larry Oliver
Since this entire thread is about the Intent of FC rules - where is the Intent written down?
Maybe it could be written down, probably by the mysterious 'Bilderberg-like" group that met in 1986. Hopefully there are still a few of those guys around with their faculties intact.
Although I was not at the secret meeting, I'll begin the Writing of the Intent:
FC is an open-wheel racing class in which design must not deviate from that seen in the 1970's.
Will there be an approval process for the "Written Intent " document?
Could these just be considered a set of better or more detailed rules?
Brian
Quote:
Originally Posted by S Lathrop
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
Froggy, I think you have read Steve's and my intents incorrectly...Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
IMO, Steve was saying "here is an example of what can happen if the intent of a rule is ignored," not that this is what the rule banning Titanium actually means or should mean. Again, Steve, if I am wrong, correct me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
That is what the whole rules clarification that started with Richard and was then taken over by the CRB and FSAC is about. For a long time GCR 1.2.3 has been used to preserve the intent of the rules, and it will be in the future also since no set of rules will be perfect.
The reality is that you cannot parse the words in the GCR like a lawyer. If people had followed through on the push for rules clarification years ago, we could have prevented this mistake. The Radon isn't going to be legal under the 2010 GCR, or under the new rules.
Don't forget the whole thing could have been prevented with a prior ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Wren,
The fact that Richard initated a comprehensive re-write of the rules on his own initiative is more or less tacit admission that the rules, as written, allowed more than the original rules writers perhaps intended - or, at least more than Richard's interpretation was comfortable with. Otherwise, the re-write would not be necessary.
You seem to imply having some kind of crystal ball in your back pocket with regard to the legality of the Radon (which I remind you has not been ruled upon officially), and make a lot of very cut & dried statements to that regard - but the fact that there is so much public debate about the subject means that the issue is far from settled. Declaring it illegal repeatedly from the sidelines will not make it so.
I would humbly submit that if there is intent behind a rule - then the rule writer damn well should have written the rule they intended.
Cheers,
Rennie
The only "intent" I see going on here is the intention of certain people to interpreted the rules however they see fit at the expense of others.
Some people here seem to be making a hell of a lot of assumptions.....
This is how tyrants re-write history...
P.S. Cheers everybody!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
Funny, you could take that to mean either side of this debate.
That was quick.....
I have looked at the pictures, but have not seen the chassis myself, so I am still (as I am sure many people are) confused as to what is purported as illegal on your car. furthermore, I dont see why the clarifications would amke your car illegal either. Can you please explain it in laymens terms without giving away your corporate secrets? I have heard rumours of what does not comply with the rules, but other then the cf panels there is no way to verify.
My feeling on the matter either way, is that you should complete the car and then protest it yourself. There is a history for this procedure. In my dealings with various tech inspectors and the supposed experts at Topeka, you can get the answer you are looking for by shaping the questions the correct way.
So as Ricky Richardo used to say..."splain it to me, Lucy"
John
That's fair. I don't think that anyone has said that the GCR is the greatest thing ever, or that it couldn't be better. The idea here is to make it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rennie Clayton
I've given my reasons. More so than people just saying it is legal to the 2010 GCR. We even got an alarmist thread about how all of our old cars are going to be illegal. That wasn't true. Then I was told my DB6 wouldn't be legal and the rules were somehow a massive change to the requirement on side protection. That was also absolutely untrue.Quote:
You seem to imply having some kind of crystal ball in your back pocket with regard to the legality of the Radon (which I remind you has not been ruled upon officially), and make a lot of very cut & dried statements to that regard - but the fact that there is so much public debate about the subject means that the issue is far from settled. Declaring it illegal repeatedly from the sidelines will not make it so.
Read back through the thread and see that it starts out trying to parse the language of the GCR and find loopholes, then it moves into, "well, why can't we do it this way" or "but that is so outdated" of course we also get a nice dose of "this is so much safer that only people who want to see people injured and killed would ever try to keep it out" next it is "let me write new rules for hybrid construction since this is outside of the rules we have now" then we take a trip through "what are all of these people who trusted their money with someone who has never built a formula car going to do" then Foschi wanders in and makes some funny comments followed by some completely misapplied GCR rules and we return to "modern manufacturing practices make all of this so easy, we should definitely allow all new materials and construction techniques"
There really isn't a lot of debate about legality in all of the nonsense in there. I can only imagine the next phase of this will be either "think of the children" or "if we don't allow carbon panel hybrid construction then the terrorists have already won."
That would be great. The only way that can happen now is for someone to step up and try to capture the intent of the rules in a rewrite/clarification. That person just needs to know that people are going to tell lies about them, attack their character, attack their motivations, just generally **** on them, and they will never receive appreciation.Quote:
I would humbly submit that if there is intent behind a rule - then the rule writer damn well should have written the rule they intended.
I am going to go ahead and hurry to get in line to volunteer for that. I expect the spots to go fast.
Nobody I know likes to engage in character assassination (most have kept their comments general and not singled anyone out). It's not that I don't appreicate people I just wish it had never been done. Because I keep asking myself why was it done? That seems to speak to the true "intent".
The problem with this entire "re-write" has been and ALWAYS will be the lack of transparency in how it was done.
They was no member input up-front, no discussion about how the rules should be interpreted. It was simple done behind our backs and voile.......thrown out at us like an oncoming freight train. Now we have this ticking time bomb situation that unless we do something about it and fast it goes off.
How do they know that these new rules they invented follows the original intent? Did they go back in a time machine to 1986? And who cares if it does anyway? This is 2010 not 1986. At least last time I checked. I'd loved to go back to 1986 and start over.
This method of ambush rules "clarification" or whatever else you want to call it is simply not on. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever. It tends to tick people off.
Not allowing all of us to be part of the process....now that's being "dis-enfranchaised"
P.S. Cheers Everybody!
Hi John:Quote:
Originally Posted by John Robinson II
I'll try to answer without giving away too many details.
We have a structural floor pan of 16 gauge 4130 steel that is welded along its entire perimeter to the required lower main frame tubes. It complies with the GCR in every way, including with the roll cage rules, and has curvature of less than one inch, but doesn't happen to be horizontal to the ground.
We have an undertray that is separate from the structural floor pan (like many cars) but is roughly horizontal and complies with the 1" deviation requirement in the FC rules.
All completely legal under the 2010 rules, as everyone who has seen it agrees, but different from existing FC cars. It does allow a true raised nose. This has led some people to call it contrary to the "intent" of the rules. Of course, everyone you ask has a different version of that mysterious "intent." The proposed new rules require the floor pan to be "approximately parallel to the ground" (whatever that means) and would make our car illegal.
Good suggestion, and I'm certainly aware of the self-protest procedure. One nice feature is that the finding of the Court of Appeals is kept confidential if they find your car legal. ;)Quote:
My feeling on the matter either way, is that you should complete the car and then protest it yourself. There is a history for this procedure. In my dealings with various tech inspectors and the supposed experts at Topeka, you can get the answer you are looking for by shaping the questions the correct way.
Nathan
Please don't think that I am saying that our process is the best way to do things, but how would you do it? One giant meeting at a specific place and time? Telecon? Internet forum (which I think would be awesome)? That's a serious question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
The rules clarification has been released for member input. That is allowing you to be part of the process. These rules are not set in stone and they are not already passed.
I just don't think this quite meets the standard of being thrown at you like a freight train.
See, this is what I don't get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
This proposal IS allowing you to be part of the process. This is a proposal to the members, requesting input on what has been constructed. This isn't a new rule set in the 2011 GCE. If you don't like it or do like it, now is your opportunity to be part of the process and state your case one way or the other. It's as transparent as any club is going to get to it's members, unless you run for an elected position with the SCCA.
This isn't jammed down' anyone's throat and isn't set in stone. There is no possible way to have transparency on any private party individual who is working to make the rules more clear on everything the SCCA does. If I was working on new wording for a CGR rule to propose to the SCCA for 2011, why would I bring it to the club members to convolute the start of the process? Thus, you have the exact same opportunity to bring an idea or concept to the SCCA on your own, and not involve anyone else.
The SCCA BoD and CRB will take your suggestion into consideration and either table the idea or offer it up to discussion to the members through their monthly newsletter—as has been done here.
What else would you like to see in the hands of the club members? And how would you suggest transparency from every concept to the point where it is presented to the members?
I've read it all. The meandering nature of the discussion has no relevance to the facts of legality - regardless of how far down the rabbit hole it goes. And neither is the fact that the discussion has wandered an indictment against the legality of the design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
In my opinion, it is hardly tortured logic to consider the panels as residing in the space which contains the driver (i.e., the cockpit), and therefore legal per the rules.
Well, you can't have it both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Cheers,
Rennie
Ironic....what was his intent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
Doug,
It's not allowing me to be part of the process. It's forcing me to be reactionary. That's not being part of "a process". The way this is structured there is no negotiating . There is no discussion of permitted exceptions and no real way to input any either (you can't write laws via email...democracy doesn't work that way).
In this situation there is only a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down". That's more akin to being a spectator at a gladiator event, not part of "a process".
You're basiically telling me that if I just started making up rules on my own (which is exactly what happened here) and then submitted them to the CRB everyone would find them in the next Fastrak? C'mon on!
P.S. Cheers Everyone!
P.S.S. I don't have a process to work from but I know I wouldn't start by attempting a complete re-write of the rules in a vaccum.
P.S.S. Did a mention Cheers Everyone!
I think I'll pour a Martini now...:beer:Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
It may well be that drinking is the only logical thing to do in this situation.
Cheers,
Chris C.
They have to make it through the CRB/FSAC part of the process, but that is absolutely correct. I've done it, it isn't hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
I disagree, but I understand your point. The panels still aren't allowed to do other things where carbon is prohibited. It isn't like the Radon guys had some amazing revelation that no one has ever had before, I know there were people trying to run stressed panel construction/hybrid construction all the way back to the early 90's. They weren't allowed then either. Last week I got an interesting lesson in the history of stressed panel construction from an SCCA old timer, very enlightening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rennie Clayton
The CRB and FSAC had a hand in writing the rules clarification and they consider it a clarification, not a huge paradigm shift. So, my guess is that the rules clarification represents their interpretation of the 2010 GCR. Since the COA goes to them for help on protests, I would expect to have basically the views contained in the rules clarification. I don't think my opinion that the car is illegal per the 2010 GCR is much of a stretch at all.
I'm not trying to have things two ways. The lies and misrepresentations of people were out of line.Quote:
Well, you can't have it both ways.
[quote=Thomas Copeland;267931In this situation there is only a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down". That's more akin to being a spectator at a gladiator event, not part of "a process".[/quote]
Ahhh yes, but the SCCA is not a government or a Democracy. It is a privately run club. If you don't participate in the process, then you don't have too much room to complain when things don't go your way. Like it or not, the system is the way it is. If you don't like it, run for a Board position or become a member of the CRB.
There is no promise of transparency or member involvement by the SCCA in regards to rules, or anything else for that matter, in the GCR. You are not obligated to be a member of the club nor follow it's rules.
I still don't understand how you can expect/want full transparency from the very beginning of an individual's quest to have a rule clarified or changed. Should all potential ideas for changes in the GCR be prefaced with a personal phone call to every member to ask if they have an opinion or not? It's a preposterous notion to think that every potential rule change from the moment of it's inception be discussed with the entire membership base before putting it in writing as an "official proposal" in FasTrack.
In this case, a rudimentary "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" is really all you are going to be able to gather outside of a few passionate letters from people who are directly effected by the change either way. You do have an opportunity to write a letter or pick up a phone and state your case—that's far more than most people have in their day-to-day lives.
I'd still like to hear a reasonable alternative to the SCCA rules process that is so clandestine and manipulative.
Uhh, yeah, that's exactly how it works. How do you think F1000 became part of the SCCA?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
Wren,Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Unfortunately, you are basing your opinion on a tenuous "I'll know it when I see it" definition of what constitutes stressed panel construction. All tube frames flex - by strict definition, any car in the paddock with bodywork securely mounted to the frame could fit within the definition of stressed panel construction, given that the mountings will transfer stress from the steel tubes to the panels. Are they illegal? Of course not. But what makes them non-stressed panels? Mounted on greater than 6" centers - as is delineated for stress-bearing panels on the chassis, and for mounting reinforced kevlar bodywork?
The history is largely non-relevant, though I am familiar with most of it. What matters is the rules as they are written.
Cheers,
Rennie
Funny, I was funny?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWINtUCshxY
and I don't remember talking about any GCR rules.