Radon photos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camadella

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. ... The reason for the rule was to prevent you from using exotic and very expensive materials in your FC chassis.

---

I don't have a dog in this fight...at least not directly, but I can respond to a few of Chris' points here.

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.

Quote:

---

Now, it's 2010. Carbon fiber is cheap. As cheap as fiberglass.

---

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.

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Foschi

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?

---

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. ;)

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quickshoe

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. ;)

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

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!

---

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....;)

How many of you built a test track to teach the kids the importance and tediousness of testing.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

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".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Stohr

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 ;)

---

Is wood technically not a composite material?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ananth K

Is wood technically not a composite material?

---

Nature's composite.

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

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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland

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 GCR

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]

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland

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 think that is why there was a rewrite started years ago.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland

I had read that B2 section in FC earlier too. I had read all of that. 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.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland

I had read that B2 section in FC earlier too. I had read all of that. 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

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

---

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.

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 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

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.

---

:D

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.