But I thought the gearbox was running gear and not frame. The rear shock mounts don't even touch the frame.Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Printable View
But I thought the gearbox was running gear and not frame. The rear shock mounts don't even touch the frame.Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
The rear shock mounts bolt to pickup points, which are by definition part of the frame.
The gearbox is running gear. The parts used to bolt it on are part of the frame.
So the bellhousing is then part of the frame and not running gear??Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
I have always thought of it as part of the frame.
So neither of these can be carbon fiber?
http://i.imgur.com/i8A3hNl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/bosvZCm.jpg
But the shock mounts dont touch the frame. There's a giant piece of mag between them.Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
I guess I now have to relable my bolts bin. It's now a frame bin. :D
Carbon fiber panels can't be stress-bearing per the GCR definition of a stress-bearing panel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Perhaps Google has some fancy algorithms that provide results based on prior pages visited because I get several pages that return "Non-Ferrous Metal" when I simply search "Non-Ferrous".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
It's a bracket. Still must be non-ferrous, but it's neither a "frame" nor "suspension", but I'm not likely to convince you of that since you believe all suspension brackets are part of the frame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
What if your front shock absorbers mount to the backside of the dash panel? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Cue laughter in 3...2...Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
They do. There is no longer a "standard" set of search results for a given term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
The rules governing them are in the frame section and they meet the GCR definition for being part of the frame. It seems like this bother you.Quote:
Originally Posted by stonebridge20
Yes, but they cannot be part of the frame at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
They do. I have used multiple computers and I have google analytics turned off for speed, the results remain the same. Google or Google scholar?Quote:
Perhaps Google has some fancy algorithms that provide results based on prior pages visited because I get several pages that return "Non-Ferrous Metal" when I simply search "Non-Ferrous".
The rules for the bracket are in the frame section. They meet the GCR definition for frame in multiple ways. You haven't presented any argument that they are not frame.Quote:
It's a bracket. Still must be non-ferrous, but it's a neither a "frame" nor "suspension", but I'm not likely to convince you of that since you believe all suspension brackets are part of the frame.
You are unlikely to convince me because there is a published SCCA COA ruling on this and you haven't done anything but give your opinion. Neither your opinion nor mine matters at this point.
OK I have pretty much stopped reading all of these posts. Boring, boring, boring. Just remember the part that says:
The use of carbon fiber and/or Kevlar reinforcement, titanium, beryllium, metal matrix composites, ceramics, high strength composites and similar materials is prohibited unless specifically permitted. The use of the word "unrestricted" in any section does not indicate the allowance of these prohibited materials.
e. The area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the front instrument/dash roll hoop bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead shall be protected by at least one of the following methods to prevent the intrusion of objects into the cockpit. Panels may extend to the forward most bulkhead, but must otherwise comply with these regulations.
1. Panel(s), minimum of either .060 inch heat treated aluminum (6061-T6 or equivalent) or 18 gauge steel, attached to the outside of the main frame tubes.
2. Reinforced body, consisting of at least two layers of 5 ounce, bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame. (5 or more layers are highly recommended.) For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than 6 inch centers. The steel tubes used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material.
3. Flat composite panels of uniform thickness and construction attached to the outside of the main frame tubes. Shaping of these panels to conform with the outer perimeter of the main frame tubes is permitted. Carbon fiber is permitted; however, it must be used in conjunction with another "anti-ballistic" GCR - 259 9.1.1. Formula Car (FC/FF) Category Specifications FCS type material (e.g., Kevlar, Zylon, etc). Such material shall be at least 1.5mm (.060 inches) in thickness not counting the carbon fiber.
4. Composite anti-intrusion panels shall be attached with no more than eight fasteners per side. Fasteners shall be AN or superior grade of not more than 0.25 inch diameter. Two flat or countersunk Mil Spec or SAE washers of no more than 1 inch diameter may be employed with each fastener. Ten fasteners per side are permitted if the panels extend to the front bulkheadAlternatively, FIA mounting is permitted as follows: One panel shall be permitted per side. It shall be fastened to the frame at its extreme corners, the upper, lower, forward and rearward edge halfway between the corners, and halfway along each diagonal tube. The attachment should consist of an 8mm U-bolt and an aluminum plate 3mm thick, 20mm wide and 12mm longer than the U-bolt span. Panel mounting must comply with one or the other above prescribed methods. It may not be a combination of the two.
Sorry to say it guys bit these are the rules as of today. It simply does not matter what was allowed in 2010. The rules SPECIFICALLY state:
D. A non-compliant ruling will be published; a compliant ruling will not be published. Court of Appeals decisions on technical compliance are effective for the calendar year during which they are rendered, and are superseded by the following year’s edition of the GCR.
I suggest that you make your cars fit these rules. I personally know about this as the rules changed for me in March 2006 and I CHANGED the cars to comply with the new rules.
Shut up and race (as they say in NASCAR LAND. I think I am done with this thread.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
I'll add in some thoughts for you to mull over - everyone for the most part has veered off on to tangential arguments and has missed the most important points:
( This will all relate to interpreting the 2102 rules, but also relate to the 2013 interpretation methods for ANY of the classes)
1 - Each section of the rules - chassis, suspension, bodywork, etc - has statements about materials that are allowed or not allowed. Those statements sometimes cover ALL of the items described in that section (depending on how it is worded), regardless of whether or not the item is considered a "part" of the generic section heading - eg - in the Chassis rules, brackets are mentioned and therefore controlled by the Chassis section, meaning that they are also controlled by whatever generic allowances or restrictions are stated for the Chassis section as a whole (it does not matter whether a suspension bracket is "part" of the frame or not - the bracket materials are still controlled the allowances or restrictions as stated in the Chassis rules section). The only way the GCR lets you allow a material for a specific purpose that has otherwise been banned in that rule section is to mention that material specifically. The CF ban in the Chassis rules covers ALL items described in the Chassis section, and can be over ridden for an item ONLY by stating specifically that CF is legal for that item.
2 - Dual hoop designs have by definition and design 2 hoops - with one being the "forward" hoop, and the other the "rear" hoop. One will be the Main Hoop, and will be defined primarily by the material used (as defined in the requirements for formula car Main Hoops). It can reside in either position, but not both. Which position gets chosen to be the Main Hoop is critical when determining the legality of the floorpan and the fore-aft coverage by the side intrusion panels - the GCR states that those 2 items are related to the rear Hoop, NOT the Main Hoop.
3 - Compliance reviews are allowed to only address the specified item or concept. A design concept can be declared legal for the subject or rule definition asked about, but can still be illegal if it also performs another function illegally.
4 - Compliance review rulings are good only for the calender year they are issued.
That is all I will add to this debate.
The GCR defines the frame as:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
And there's an end to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GCR 2012
If a bracket is necessary for the suspension to be connected to the car, it's part of the frame. No "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s.
:)
[QUOTE]
Bother me? Not a even a tiny bit. I actualy wasn't even thinking very hard about what I was typing. I was just entertaining myself by trying to mess with you a bit. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Wren
After 30 years in this game I gave up paying attention to SCCA rules. Too much crap for an $8 trophy. I went vintage racing and it lowered my blood pressure 20 points.
The car was made illegal by efforts made after the fact in 2013. Funny how much of your time you have put into crusading against the car too. Did you race against the Radon in 2012? Own an FC? Or let me guess, you are fighting for rules that limit safety for the good of the class?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Based on a dishonest interpretation of the term nonferrous. A politicized perversion of English. Does the COA have the authority? Yes. Are they using it properly? No.Quote:
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?
Firstly, I never said the whole world breaks down into two categories. But when it comes to "containing iron" (ferrous) or "not containing iron" (nonferrous), everything in the universe falls into one of those categories. They have to - the two are mutually exclusive.Quote:
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.
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.
And funny that - according to you and the universal dictator on standards at the ASME you emailed - nonferrous only applies to metals, when there are so many instances of the term "nonferrous metals."
They ARE the only two options. Plastic either contains iron, or it doesn't.Quote:
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.
You provided a single anecdote sent by email. No conclusive proof of any kind.Quote:
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
Yes, I do. nonferrous is used to describe non metals, and nonferrous metals is used quite often as well. There is no universal standard on this until those terms disappear from professional publications. In the absence of an official standard, we have to default to the meaning of the word.Quote:
It is an entirely appropriate way to characterize the email from that person. Do you deny any of what they had to say?
You are being blatantly dishonest. First you called it an "industry standard," and now you have backpeddled to it being "an OPINION on an industry standard." Maybe if you weren't so excessively wordy you would remember the things you have written. See for yourself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Any aluminum replacement would be illegal as it would have to be mounted structurally - you sure as hell can't mount a SAFETY panel with tape. That is completely unfeasible and the rules writers deliberately included this rule to make sure of that. It serves no other purpose, and actually reduces the safety of the class by making all safety panels illegal under structural concerns.Quote:
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.
I argue that there is only one rear/main/whatever bulkhead on the radon, and it's pretty clear from the picture, based on location, construction, and the providing of separation between the cockpit and everything aft of the cockpit. You know, the actual purpose of a bulkhead.Quote:
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.
Anyone who sees three bulkheads in this image has let their agenda trump their logic:
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...1&d=1362092124
Such a clever way to avoid the 1" floor pan deviation... Looks bogus to me, IMHO... Now, we argue the 'letter of the law' & the 'intent of the law'....
Thx for the anti-intrusion rules posting. Now, I know how to fab & mount mine ! I do appreciate this thread & the GCR's posted. It has saved me a ton of time wading thru them on my own :)
You and I would both do well to take Jay's advice. He has accomplished far more in motorsports than you or I ever will.
At least we can agree that the car is illegal per the 2012 GCR.Quote:
Originally Posted by rperry
I submitted my compliance review in 2012. We were discussing it on here in 2012. I'm not sure why the publication date matters to you. We would have gotten the same results in 2010 or 2011.
I did not make the car illegal; the COA did not make the car illegal; the stewards did not make the car illegal. The rule book made the car illegal. The car was always illegal. Just because we found out right before the rules changed doesn't matter. That is a reflection on Radon not bothering to listen to the warnings they were given and actually find out if their car was legal. Just because the car ran very few club events doesn't mean anything.
It didn't take much time at all to prove the car is illegal. Nathan posted the information on here and was warned by people about the assumptions he was making. But, I was certainly tired of listening to all of the vague conspiracy claims. I hope that this will put most of them to bed. There is absolutely no proof of it. I think it is just noise to distract the people who accidentally bought $100k FS cars.
I received invitations from 3 different Radon owners to protest their car. There have been claims that they would listen to the SCCA and COA. I am curious if they are actually going to do that. I guess we will see.
Yes, I own an FC, not that it would matter at all for whether or not the the Radon was legal.
Can someone explain (or better yet show visually) the difference between the RFR and Radon raised floors?
Here is Mike explaining how the RFR chassis works
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...9&postcount=51
Basically, where the Radon has bodywork to meet the reference area rule, the RFR has a frame.
The only ruling against the Radon for 2012 is the politically motivated and perverse definition of nonferrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
And the rules were re-written for 2013 to make sure that the radon can never be made compliant. In fact, because of a rule whose only intent was to outlaw the Radon, no real safety panels can ever be legal in FC. Bravo to the rules writers for that one.
Was it Richard Pare who proposed these rule changes? Isn't he an owner or investor of a competing manufacturer?
According to the dictionary definition that you posted, they are using a dictionary definition of the word nonferrous. Get over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rperry
It is just irresponsible to say something like that. It has been posted on here over and over and over where it came from. One person from the 2011 FSRAC even broke down who on the FSRAC had an involvement in any kind of race car business at all.Quote:
Was it Richard Pare who proposed these rule changes? Isn't he an owner or investor of a competing manufacturer?
It has also been posted on here over and over that Richard Pare is neither an owner or an investor in a competing manufacturer.
This is a pretty good summary of what I frustrates me about the conspiracy claims. No one has given a shred of proof about a conspiracy and even when people try to allude to the conspiracy, they do it with information that is untrue.
Who is rperry and why does he care?
The interpretation is illogical considering how often nonferrous metals is used. It relies and is essentially justified by a single person's opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
I also want to correct an assertion that has been made several times in this thread: that the radon could just replace Carbon with aluminum to be compliant for 2013. That comes from the following rule, which is terrible for FC safety. I guess banning the Radon was more important than driver safety.
This essentially bans any effective cockpit safety panels.Quote:
"Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and anti-intrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or installed in such a manner that they serve any structural purpose other than that of anti-intrusion. In the absence of such panels the chassis must be capable of performing to the same level or degree as when they are installed."
My only recollection was that Pare proposed the last set of rules changes. And I know very little about Citation, except what is written on what looks like their website? That's where my question comes from.Quote:
This is a pretty good summary of what I frustrates me about the conspiracy claims. No one has given a shred of proof about a conspiracy and even when people try to allude to the conspiracy, they do it with information that is untrue.
http://icpcitation.com/companyhistory.htm
If citations website is true, that makes me suspicious.
I designed the aerodynamics of the car, and also the bodywork shape/styling. I do not hold a stake in Radon however.Quote:
Originally Posted by tstarke4
I am curious who Wren is, and why he cares as well. I always found it strange that he posts SO frequently about the Radon and took such a personal effort to seek clarifications. I remember possibly reading somewhere that he builds most of the parts for one of the other FC chassis. Would be nice if he could clarify. My memory could very well be off.
Ok. I still don't understand why you are passionately and persistently defending the car.
I posted the 2009 rules just for your benefit. The Radon is illegal under those rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by rperry
I assume you are not familiar with how an SCCA protests proceeds and how evidence is presented and adjudicated. A better approach for you would be to take the rules as posted hear and build a logical argument as to why they do not apply to the Radon. Then present that argument here for all to review.
You are entitled to your opinion as to the legality of the Radon. Nathan built the car and the people who advised him felt they could get the design past the Court of Appeals for the SCCA. The COA has the final word on things like this.
Nathan did get COA rulings on questions he asked. And he got rulings on those questions. But the car was never subjected to an adversarial protest where the really tough questions would have been asked and ruled on. I am absolutely certain that if the Radon were protested at some place like the SCCA Run Offs, the protesters would prevail.
Your work is not being questioned here. Nathan chose to test the frame construction rules and he has recieved a little push back.
I want to see the car compete. I know how it compares in a wind tunnel, but that's not the same as it driving. I also think the rules changes and clarifications have not been sincere or maybe even had conflicts of interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by tstarke4
I too would like to see the car compete. Unfortunately, the first time I saw one on track it was on fire in the Boot at Watkins Glen. I have owned, driven and prepared numerous F2000 cars including a National Championship winner , and multiple Pro winner. Had the Radon been the smashing success it was expected to be and had it not had this cloud of conformity over it, I might well have bought one, in spite of the fact that the Radon is far to nice for Schwietz to sit in.
Your tortuous use of conversational logic isn't helping to change my opinion.
I'm sorry, but a ruling on the 2012 rules that comes out in 2013 means the car WAS illegal in 2012, not that it was MADE illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by rperry
In the context of automotive engineering (and different disciplines DO have specialized usages for ordinary English words) the term is being used completely properly. "Nonferrous" means metals.Quote:
Based on a dishonest interpretation of the term nonferrous. A politicized perversion of English. Does the COA have the authority? Yes. Are they using it properly? No.
And plastics are "non-metallic", not "nonferrous" in this context.Quote:
Firstly, I never said the whole world breaks down into two categories. But when it comes to "containing iron" (ferrous) or "not containing iron" (nonferrous), everything in the universe falls into one of those categories. They have to - the two are mutually exclusive.
And funny that - according to you and the universal dictator on standards at the ASME you emailed - nonferrous only applies to metals, when there are so many instances of the term "nonferrous metals."
They ARE the only two options. Plastic either contains iron, or it doesn't.
He provided an interpretation by an expert in the appropriate field.Quote:
You provided a single anecdote sent by email. No conclusive proof of any kind.
The objective evidence is that "nonferrous" is almost NEVER used to describe anything except metals that don't contain iron.Quote:
Yes, I do. nonferrous is used to describe non metals, and nonferrous metals is used quite often as well. There is no universal standard on this until those terms disappear from professional publications. In the absence of an official standard, we have to default to the meaning of the word.
You seem unnecessarily vehement about this. Do you work for Radon?Quote:
You are being blatantly dishonest. First you called it an "industry standard," and now you have backpeddled to it being "an OPINION on an industry standard." Maybe if you weren't so excessively wordy you would remember the things you have written. See for yourself:
The replacement couldn't be mounted structurally on centres closer than 6" to avoid the stressed panel rule, but that doesn't preclude every method of designing and affixing a replacement.Quote:
Any aluminum replacement would be illegal as it would have to be mounted structurally - you sure as hell can't mount a SAFETY panel with tape. That is completely unfeasible and the rules writers deliberately included this rule to make sure of that. It serves no other purpose, and actually reduces the safety of the class by making all safety panels illegal under structural concerns.
I don't feel qualified to comment on that subject, but I would wonder about a "bulkhead" that has a bend in it.Quote:
I argue that there is only one rear/main/whatever bulkhead on the radon, and it's pretty clear from the picture, based on location, construction, and the providing of separation between the cockpit and everything aft of the cockpit. You know, the actual purpose of a bulkhead.
Anyone who sees three bulkheads in this image has let their agenda trump their logic:
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...1&d=1362092124
Actually they are using a dictionary definition that you posted. Hardly illogicalQuote:
Originally Posted by rperry
I honestly don't know if this rule would prevent using an aluminum bracket to replace the shock mount or not. I know it would not preclude using a welded in tube for the shock mount. I would encourage you guys to get some outside help with interpreting and understanding rules.Quote:
I also want to correct an assertion that has been made several times in this thread: that the radon could just replace Carbon with aluminum to be compliant for 2013. That comes from the following rule, which is terrible for FC safety. I guess banning the Radon was more important than driver safety.
wrongQuote:
My only recollection was that Pare proposed the last set of rules changes.
The history of Richard involvement in Citation has been put here before. The only involvement Richard has with the cars is making diffs for the FB cars. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other parts that he makes for the cars.Quote:
And I know very little about Citation, except what is written on what looks like their website? That's where my question comes from.
http://icpcitation.com/companyhistory.htm
If citations website is true, that makes me suspicious.
I've made it clear in the past who I am and what I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by rperry
I have also already explained in this thread why I sent in a rules clarification. Reading is fundamental.
Does it matter?Quote:
I remember possibly reading somewhere that he builds most of the parts for one of the other FC chassis. Would be nice if he could clarify. My memory could very well be off.
Ok, what is that? I heard (like 2 years ago) that you make most machined citation parts, but let me be clear that I'm not claiming or saying you do, just asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Your clarifications were instrumental in the legality of the radon, so I think it does matter, and it helps the transparency of the rules process. Disclosure certainly doesn't do any harm, which is why I did as soon as I was asked.Quote:
Does it matter?
This is an unrelated analogy, and I'm not drawing parallels or making conspiracy claims. But if for example everyone on the COA next year magically becomes a Radon investor, and then the rules are changed to give the Radon advantages, people would probably say what those people do, or who they are associated with, matters. Or if I sat on the COA now, and the rules changes required carbon panels instead of banned them, people would also say it mattered.
Is more likely to be on the COA.
Here is what i wrote the last time I was asked:
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...2&postcount=35
I think it has been on the track for 2 seasons and will race next season, in the series that really counts.Quote:
Originally Posted by rperry
Sorry, but if you would actually spend some time reading the 2012 rules ( or even the all the earlier rules), you would realize that the car doesn't even conform to those. You and the Radon crew may think so, but that only shows their inability to read what is actually there in front of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by rperry
Hilarious! The alu/steel/kevlar side panels rules have been in place for 25 years, both here and in most of the rest of the world. The composite panel rules - almost an exact copy of the FIA requirements - were added in 2012, not 2013 I can think of many ways of mounting such panels to frames that would add zero to near-zero to the frame structure, yet maintain all of their side penetration protection capability.Quote:
Originally Posted by rperry
The Radon can't even pass the 2012 and earlier side panel and chassis construction rules.
Anyone who DOESN'T see that there are three bulkheads as defined in the GCR has let their agenda trump their logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by rperry
Please try sticking to things that you actually know something about - the GCR most certainly ain't one of them. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstarke4
Shouldn't the protagonists in this thread have started with the getting-to-know-you exchanges 88 000 posts back?Quote:
Originally Posted by rperry
It is a related hypothetical. Do you have any idea who the people are on the COA? Are you seriously questioning their motives and/or bias? Dragging the integrity of these *volunteers* through the mud is a bad idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by rperry
it's obvious that now everyone is arguing semantics and the definition of non-ferrous among other things. The truth lies ONLY in the execution of the GCR and and the words that the CoA have instituted for the rules.
The rules seem to have been fairly straight-forward for more than a couple of years now, though many seem to be interpreting them the way they want to see them for their own benefit. The only way this is resolved will be with an actual hard and fast protest.
Arguing the definition of words doesn't solve anything. No one is willing to see that they might not be right in this issue. Until a protest is made and an SCCA official deems the car legal or illegal in its entirety, nothing will be solved volleying insults at one another.
If this thread continues down this path, I will have no choice but to close it down. The personal insults and ad hominem attacks need to stop, or we will be doing more than just locking up what once was a very informative thread.
Please proceed with care and caution.
The rules prohibit the panels serving structural purpose:Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
An impact panel can't be mounted with hopes and dreams or with magnets. The nature of it needing to transfer full impact loads to the main chassis structure means that such panels will HAVE to be mounted structurally. Even if they are installed and intended for anti-intrusion only, they will by nature serve a structural purpose.Quote:
....anti-intrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or installed in such a manner that they serve any structural purpose other than that of anti-intrusion.
If the SCCA wants to prohibit carbon panels, despite their lower cost and greater safety, then I guess that's their directive. But the provision above seems to serve no purpose. I don't see how it makes the class safer, more affordable, or improves racing.
I am saying people with stakes in other manufacturers have a suspiciously high presence in these rules changes and clarifications. If the changes were innocuous or didn't affect any one manufacturer more than another, then there wouldn't be any suspicion. But the rules not only ban one chassis, but they carefully make sure not to affect any existing chassis and make sure the Radon can never be made compliant without effectively redesigning the whole car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Dixon
If you look back on the rules revision history of the class - better yet just rules proposal history - there is a massive peak in activity weeks after people found out about the Radon's construction, with people with financial stakes in the competition behind them. That's highly suspicious to me.
Of course those with ties to another manufacturer will claim they are doing this for the good of the class, or out of benevolence, that the timing is just coincidental, and that the radon banning is just collateral damage in achieving a decades long dream of outlawing panels. It's up to members to decide if they believe that or not.
I would like to apologize for dragging Sponge Bob into this mess. For this ad Porifera attack I am imposing a 24 hour self-ban.
You might interpret things that way. But as I told you, the Radon was not legal under the rules in effect at the time it was designed. The most important fact I would point out to you is that no one had tried to build a car as Radon did, using composites in the construction of the frame. That is not because we were stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by rperry
I was a member of the 1986 rules committee as was Ralf Firman and many others. David Bruns was the major contributor to the rules that the Radon has chosen to ignore. This battle over frame construction predates the 1986 rules by over a decade. The fastening rules for sheet metal panels and the prohibition of composites containing carbon were a response to the battle them. The Radon and the subsequent rules clarifications are simply a reaffirmation of that fight and a fresh statement of the principals that have always governed FF/FC.
You, Nathan and the rest of the Radon supporters simply attempted to circumvent the long established principals of the tube frame classes. Your revolution was not successful. Get over it.
There are several people posting here who have been in similar situation of the Radon and have had our heads handed to us by the rules makers. Many of us can point to the sentences we have caused to appear in the GCR. We all fixed our designs and got on with winning races.
I do hope this thread remains online. As a beginner, I had no idea how complicated FC was & is. I was overwhelmed. This thread has answered so many questions. Now, I'm encouraged & excited about working on our car. Rules have been clearly stated. Driver protection has been a primary concern. Now, fabbing & mounting my own side anti-intrusion panels will be ez. The rules are really straight forward... Thx to all !
IMHO. I believe this sums it up for me. FC is for metal fabricators. Now, to brush up on my brazing, welding, metal bending, shearing, cutting, drilling & last, but not least, finger pinching, burning & bleeding :)
Excellent summary. You captured the essence of the frame construction history and this thread in one brief post!Quote:
Originally Posted by S Lathrop
Look, this is more than just carbon construction, though that is the first issue. I think the interpretation of nonferrous is politicized garbage, but whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by S Lathrop
The issue I am pointing to now is the prohibition of panels all together (not just carbon ones). Previously the limitation on structural reinforcement using panels was the six inch rule. That was proposed by David Bruns back in 1986 and has served well for over 25 years, and the Radon abides by it. Why was it removed? The SCCA wants to ban carbon... ok, but what was wrong with the 6 inch rule?
My theory: this new provision (quoted below) was added so that Radon could not simply replace all their carbon with aluminum.
How will you mount them in a way that abides by the rules? Previously, you would do this by mounting the panels per the 6 inch rule. But now, any structural mounting is illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by racerdad2
A safety panel has to transfer all of its load to the frame. And that means the frame can transfer all of its load to the panel. That gives the panel a clear (and illegal) structural purpose, even if it wasn't installed for that reason. This rule applies to all panels - not just composite ones.
EDIT: this is the rule I am referring to:
Quote:
"Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and anti-intrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or installed in such a manner that they serve any structural purpose other than that of anti-intrusion. In the absence of such panels the chassis must be capable of performing to the same level or degree as when they are installed."
Quote:
Originally Posted by rperry
Hmmm,
I laminated the required amount of Kevlar to the inside of my bodywork.
rperry. I believe the test is this... My frame must behave equally, with or without the panels. I understand your argument. I intend to fasten mine mechanically per previous posts on the GCR per FIA. If this new rule makes them illegal, then I will have an illegal car. I want my car as safe as possible, practical & still fast... I have no doubt that after my first year or two, my desire to go faster will begin to outweigh my concerns for my safety. As a beginner, I fully intend to push my limits on test days. I will experience spins, run-offs, off-track excursions, BEFORE my first race. The only thing I want to 'practice' during my racing is 'race craft'. Hopefully, I'll practice 'crashing' on my own...
Composite anti-intrusion panels that use carbon fiber materials ARE ALLOWED. Here is the 2013 GCR rules from FF-FC updated March 2013.
e. The area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the front instrument/dash roll hoop bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead shall be protected by at least one of the following methods to prevent the intrusion of objects into the cockpit. Panels may extend to the forward most bulkhead, but must otherwise comply with these regulations.
1. Panel(s), minimum of either .060 inch heat treated aluminum (6061-T6 or equivalent) or 18 gauge steel, attached to the outside of the main frame tubes.
2. Reinforced body, consisting of at least two layers of 5 ounce, bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame. (5 or more layers are highly recommended.) For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than 6 inch centers. The steel tubes used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material.
3. Flat composite panels of uniform thickness and construction attached to the outside of the main frame tubes. Shaping of these panels to conform with the outer perimeter of the main frame tubes is permitted. Carbon fiber is permitted; however, it must be used in conjunction with another "anti-ballistic" GCR - 265 9.1.1. Formula Car (FC/FF) Category Specifications FCS type material (e.g., Kevlar, Zylon, etc). Such material shall be at least 1.5mm (.060 inches) in thickness not counting the carbon fiber.
My comment on the above section(3). Carbon panels are clearly ALLOWED. Stop saying that they are not.
4. Composite anti-intrusion panels shall be attached with no more than eight fasteners per side. Fasteners shall be AN or superior grade of not more than 0.25 inch diameter. Two flat or countersunk Mil Spec or SAE washers of no more than 1 inch diameter may be employed with each fastener. Ten fasteners per side are permitted if the panels extend to the front bulkhead.
Alternatively, FIA mounting is permitted as follows: One panel shall be permitted per side. It shall be fastened to the frame at its extreme corners, the upper, lower, forward and rearward edge halfway between the corners, and halfway along each diagonal tube. The attachment should consist of an 8mm U-bolt and an aluminum plate 3mm thick, 20mm wide and 12mm longer than the U-bolt span. Panel mounting must comply with one or the other above prescribed methods. It may not be a combination of the two.
f. No other exterior panels (excepting body work) shall be permitted in the area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the forward most bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and anti-intrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or installed in such a manner that they serve any structural purpose other than that of anti-intrusion. In the absence of such panels the chassis must be capable of performing to the same level or degree as when they are installed.
my comment on the above bolded section. The rules clearly define in section 4 that the 2 different allowed attachement methods are the DEFINITION OF NON STRUCTURAL methods of attachment. Obviously the current attachement method of the Radon panels are within the above definition if the number of fasteners is ruduced to 8.
Additionally ANY panel that is attached in ANY WAY will add some structural stiffness to the car period. The SCCA knows this and it is my personal opinion that the concern from the SCCA WRT to the Radon chassis is that the driver side bay (hip upper body area) is COMPLETELY open to the side except for the composite panels. I am sure that they think that this is an attempt, by Radon, to circumvent the rules to create a functionally stiffer chassis than may be possible with a tube only frame.
My suggestion is that a single diagonal tube be welded into that open side bay that connects the lower roll bar joint to the frane rail to the upper top corner of the open bay. This will be an easy fix and will, I think, solve your problem.
I am not arguing with you, I am trying to help you solve the problem. I have been an SCCA member for 45 years and I have also had my share of problems with rules interpretation. May I respectfully suggest that you attempt to work to fix the problem as opposed to what is currently happening?
Thanks ... Jay Novak
Quote:
Originally Posted by rperry
I've always wondered about this, too. It would seem that the only thing these panels can effectively protect against is a sharp object penetrating the panel. It would also see that any legal mounting scheme (like the bodywork laminate mentioned above that I've seen on several cars) won't really give much in the way of structural protection, as the protective panel will just move with the intruding object long before any significant energy has been transferred to the frame. The only other option is to loosely attach it to the frame (i.e., tie wraps)......but is that what we want?Quote:
Originally Posted by Northwind
In truth, don't the Radon guys have a point that solidly affixing an anti-intrusion panel to the frame would give better protection to the driver? Whether or not CF is allowed is another discussion, but it would seem to me that we might be better served to allow a semi-structural anti-intrusion panel within a certain area of the frame. Yes, it would open the door to some "interesting" implementations that might significantly impact structural rigidity......and that might be OK.
Somebody tell me if I'm missing the point of how these panels do their intended job in an accident.:confused:
[Edit: Jay's post clarifies a lot of this, and leaves me wondering why the body-laminate method would be considered acceptable - should it be?]