FC/ FF rules passed 12 / 0

Printable View

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

03.03.13, 12:54 PM
rperry

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshall Mauney

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?

Well said.

Jay, my problem is why should cars need to be modified, at huge expense, to meet this new provision? In my opinion, rules changes should improve safety, increase or level competition, or reduce costs. All I see is removing the competition, and a significant decrease in driver safety.

People with a financial stake in Radon's competition pushed through a rules change that replaces "mounted on 6" centers" with "mounted with 8 bolts of 1/4" diameter." What does this accomplish? Why did this need to be written? I know it benefits radon's competition, and forces Radon out of the game. But what benefit does it have to the average SCCA member?
03.03.13, 12:57 PM
Wren

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

Anyone who sees three bulkheads in this image has let their agenda trump their logic:

Per the GCR, there are required to be three bulkheads in that picture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

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.

Jay provided the relevant information below. The GCR gives mounting methods for side impact protection that are basically the same as they have been for years or borrowed from the FIA.

This thread has been primarily discussing the panel that also serves as the shock mount. Are you arguing that the shock mount is a safety panel?

I think that you are missing the important section for a shock mount. You keep referring to the panel section, but I think that you should be looking at the bracket section, 9.1.1.3.h.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gcr

Brackets are permitted for the exclusive purpose of mounting
components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension pickups,
clutch and brake components. They shall be metal. Brackets shall
not be used to otherwise reinforce the frame. Composite and/or
non-metal bellhousings are prohibited.

I think that the GCR allows for Radon to put in some kind of aluminum bracket to mount the upper shock ends. I don't think that it allows for the shock mount bracket to be a 3' long piece of aluminum that reaches from the front bulkhead to the dash bulkhead, but it allows for some kind of bracket. Paying for a ruling on your design would probably be a good idea.

Every other manufacturer in the class has managed to find a method to mount their shocks without using enormous pieces of carbon fiber or aluminum. I am confident that Radon will be able to do the same.

Quote:

I am saying people with stakes in other manufacturers have a suspiciously high presence in these rules changes and clarifications.

No, they don't. This accusation has been around for years and still isn't true. A minimum amount of research will keep you from making false accusations.

From a member of the 2011 FSRAC, where the most recent rules revision originated:

http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=105

Dennis, there are quality pictures of the Radon frame in there also.

No member of the FSRAC involved in the process has a stake in another manufacturer. One person from the 2011 CRB has a stake in a vee manufacturer. I don't think any of the BOD who voted for this have a stake in a manufacturer.

The clarification came from the stewards and the court of appeals. I don't know any of them, but I doubt that they have an interest in a manufacturer.

I have read the letter that Nathan sent to the BOD which is full of all kinds of incoorect claims, outrageous accusations, and conspiracy theories. None of this is going to engender any sympathy for the Radon plight.

Quote:

people with financial stakes in the competition behind them.

no

Quote:

that the radon banning is just collateral damage

The Radon was not banned by the 2013 rules, it was never compliant to any FC rules that have ever existed in the SCCA.

Jay, great post.
03.03.13, 1:12 PM
Wren

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshall Mauney

I
[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?]

Yes. Laminating the kevlar to the bodywork is fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

Jay, my problem is why should cars need to be modified, at huge expense, to meet this new provision? In my opinion, rules changes should improve safety, increase or level competition, or reduce costs.

Cars should not have to be modified at all. This is not a new rule. The side impact rules are not new for 2013.

Quote:

People with a financial stake in Radon's competition pushed through a rules change that replaces "mounted on 6" centers" with "mounted with 8 bolts of 1/4" diameter."

No. It is frustrating to hear something that is just completely incorrect. Over a year ago the SCCA adopted the FIA side impact protection rules. Before that point there was no provision for using carbon fiber for side impact protection. Reference the compliance ruling that Nathan got in 2010.

When the carbon side impact protection rules were brought in, they were never allowed to be mounted on 6" centers. Anyone who did this was never compliant.

The financial stake comment? Damn.
03.03.13, 1:15 PM
rperry

The rules changing from "mounted on 6" centers" to "mounted with 8 bolts of 1/4" diameter." What does this accomplish? Why did this need to be written? I know it benefits radon's competition, and forces Radon out of the game. But what benefit does it have to the average SCCA member?

The 6" rule was in place and did a great job for 25 years. Why should radon re-design their entire car at great expense for this arbitrary change?

How can anyone provide real cockpit protection without adding at least some stiffness to the frame?
03.03.13, 1:21 PM
Wren

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

The rules changing from "mounted on 6" centers" to "mounted with 8 bolts of 1/4" diameter." What does this accomplish? Why did this need to be written? I know it benefits radon's competition, and forces Radon out of the game. But what benefit does it have to the average SCCA member?

The 6" rule was in place and did a great job for 25 years. Why should radon re-design their entire car at great expense for this arbitrary change?

You are making more claims without backing them up. You need to produce the rule set that allowed for composite panels to be mounted on 6" centers.

The rules allowed for kevlar reinforced body to be mounted on 6" centers and it still does.

You are asking why the rules were changed from something that they never said to something that they have said since the allowance for composite panels. Your question cannot be answered.
03.03.13, 1:27 PM
rperry

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wren

You are making more claims without backing them up. You need to produce the rule set that allowed for composite panels to be mounted on 6" centers.

The rules allowed for kevlar reinforced body to be mounted on 6" centers and it still does.

You are asking why the rules were changed from something that they never said to something that they have said since the allowance for composite panels. Your question cannot be answered.

My question is independent of material, so not sure why you are bringing carbon up. You are dodging my point though.

Panels mounted to the frame used to be considered as adding excessive stiffness to the frame (stress bearing) if they were mounted on less than 6" centers. Now, for 2013, that 6" rule, which served effectively for 25 years, has been eliminated. Why? And what is the benefit to the membership base?
03.03.13, 1:28 PM
reidhazelton

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

How can anyone provide real cockpit protection without adding at least some stiffness to the frame?

Did you not read Jay's post? I am sure he spent a fair amount of time in effort to add his points to the conversation, and it seems you choose to ignore anything that is contrary to your initial opinion. It is getting old to see nearly every post be ignored and the same questions and accusations repeated over and over.

The reality of it simply is not what you state.

There really is no point in debating this topic when one side keeps saying the same things over and over despite others disproving those things. Making up your own "facts" is not debating, that's politics.

BUT...on to a question that I think is very valid and want to ask myself:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Valet

Wren, I asked this before but it got lost in the mud and nobody answered: What is required to make a Radon compliant to the 2013 rules and how much would it cost? If it is a simple fix, ie replacing carbon fiber brackets with aluminum and the cost is minor, then why not simply re-homologate the cars to the 2013 rules and everyone can go about their business.

Like many have said, it seems easier for the Radon to compete now (as Jay described a great and easy way of doing) than it did under any other FC rule set. If the objective was to ban the Radon then that objective was certainly missed.
03.03.13, 1:46 PM
rperry

Quote:

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

Did you not read Jay's post? I am sure he spent a fair amount of time in effort to add his points to the conversation, and it seems you choose to ignore anything that is contrary to your initial opinion.

I did read his post. His suggestion is to weld in a diagonal tube. Not a bad idea at all. However, that doesn't affect the panel legality - the panels were designed around the 25 year old rule of 6" mounting being acceptable, which was arbitrarily changed. Why?

And why should anyone have to redesign a car over an arbitrary provision that reduces safety?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wren

Over a year ago the SCCA adopted the FIA side impact protection rules.

That's funny. Carbon panels mounted by the FIA method would massively stiffen the frame and thus be illegal.

I'll ask you again: how do you have effective impact panels that don't stiffen the frame? Why was the long standing definition of "stiffen the frame" changed from 6" mounting, to 8 bolts?

Answer: because the radon was designed around the 6" rule.
03.03.13, 1:51 PM
reidhazelton

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

And why should anyone have to redesign a car over an arbitrary provision that reduces safety?

Because it is not, was not, and never was legal. You can not do build something any way you choose just because it is safer, or claimed to be.

It is far more than just the simple 6 inch rule as to why those are not legal.
03.03.13, 1:52 PM
rperry

Quote:

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

Because it is not, was not, and never was legal. You can not do build something any way you choose just because it is safer, or claimed to be.

It is far more than just the simple 6 inch rule as to why those are not legal.

You are wren really like to skirt this issue, which has NOTHING to do with the material of a panel. Let me ask it again.

Why was the 6" rule eliminated??? What's the benefit to drivers?
03.03.13, 2:33 PM
Bill Bonow

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

Why was the 6" rule eliminated??? What's the benefit to drivers?

Robert,

Asking these type questions here at Apexspeed will get you "non-official opinions". If you need specific/official answers, I would suggest contacting SCCA Club Racing technical services (still John Bauer these days?).

Otherwise, the phrase "farting in a windstorm" comes to mind if you think anything here is "official info".

In reviewing the history of non-compliant cars (SCCA or any sanction for that matter), the "crying over spilled milk" program goes nowhere. I say fix the cars, re-homologate and get them on the track.

And of course, that is my opinion
03.03.13, 3:03 PM
racerdad2

I certainly can't answer why the change from 6" oc fastening to 8 bolts. It seems the diagonal brace & 1/4" bolts OR the FIA U-bolts are relatively ez fixes. The shock mounts ? Don't know... I this comes down to the future of FC. Does it remain as is, relatively 'old school' ? Or, does it move forward to a new formula ? ex... New, currently available engine package, sequential trans, carbon fibre crush zones & integral anti-intrusion side panels. For me, just me, I like the cars as they are... That said, the future looks a lot more like the new Formula 4's in Britain. Now, my question is... is this the development & evolution of FC or a new class ?
03.03.13, 3:04 PM
Dave Gomberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

You are wren really like to skirt this issue, which has NOTHING to do with the material of a panel. Let me ask it again.

Why was the 6" rule eliminated??? What's the benefit to drivers?

It wasn't. What has happened is that an editing error has crept into the 2013 GCR. (I have not been a party to the GCR upkeep for over a year, so I cannot say how it happened.)

If you look at the 2012 GCR (any version, but this is from the last one) you will see the following:

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 (no stress-bearing panels). The material used for the
chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the
roll hoop brace material.

The only difference between this and what appears in 2013 is that the paragraph beginning "For either method..." has been "glued" to the end of the second numbered paragraph. Clearly, this is an editorial fix and should be done post-haste. Someone should write the CRB and point out this problem.

Dave
03.03.13, 3:05 PM
Marshall Mauney

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wren

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshall Mauney

leaves me wondering why the body-laminate method would be considered acceptable - should it be?

Yes. Laminating the kevlar to the bodywork is fine.

I understand that per the rules, this is OK - I even did mine this way in a former car. What I am asking is WHY is it OK? The bodywork isn't attached at enough points, nor does it have enough structural integrity do be able to deflect much of anything in the way of a blow, so creating a very rigid portion of the bodywork doesn't seem to me to accomplish much in the way of driver protection. That is, unless you have some attachment that guarantees that it will stay tied to the frame, which is where this whole thing started.

I'm not trying to take a stance on the Radon, per se. What I am asking is why we seem to be avoiding allowing a safety feature to be integrated into the chassis in the most safe way possible. Today's legality of a feature is not a reliable indicator of its desirability.

To ask the question in as clear a form as possible: "Why do we not allow side intrusion panels to be rigidly attached or bonded to the frame, given that this would seem to enhance driver safety?"
03.03.13, 3:06 PM
Wren

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northwind

I laminated the required amount of Kevlar to the inside of my bodywork.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshall Mauney

[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?]

I was probably too flip in my response to this earlier. Sorry. To try to keep this thread useful, as I do believe that there is a lot of useful information in here amongst the noise, I will try to give a better answer.

The side impact protection rules have not changed since late 2011/early 2012. I don't remember the exact date.

The current GCR rule for side impact protection allows for kevlar reinforced bodywork under rule GCR 9.1.1.3.e.2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GCR 9.1.1.3.e.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.

That is the same kevlar reinforced bodywork rule that we have had for a long time(1986?). No one who had compliant bodywork before will not be compliant afterwards.

I encourage everyone reading this to take this opportunity to inspect their car to verify that the kevlar is actually there. There have been some incidents lately where some aftermarket Van Diemen bodywork did not have the requisite kevlar.

racerdad2- your plan to add kevlar to the bodywork is legal and a good idea. I don't know the Reynard, but I would guess that there was already some kevlar there. Reynard might have used the aluminum side intrustion rules, but you will not regret adding more kevlar. It helps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

My question is independent of material, so not sure why you are bringing carbon up. You are dodging my point though.

Your question cannot be independent of material. Letting you know that you don't understand the GCR and your question assumes an incorrect premise is not dodging your point.

Everything you are quoting is referring to side impact protection. TThe rule about 8 fasteners is a side impact protection rule and always has been.

Everything you posted makes it sound like you think that the carbon panels on a Radon were there to satisfy the side impact protection requirements in the GCR. They were not. Nathan said that there was Kevlar laminated into the bodywork of the Radon to meet that rule.

No rule was changed from the 6" rule to the 8 fastener rule. Period. They were two different things.

Quote:

Panels mounted to the frame used to be considered as adding excessive stiffness to the frame (stress bearing) if they were mounted on less than 6" centers. Now, for 2013, that 6" rule, which served effectively for 25 years, has been eliminated. Why? And what is the benefit to the membership base?

You are again not understanding the GCR. You are implying that the 6" rule in previous GCR versions allowed anything as long as it was not mounted on greater than 6" between centers. That is wrong. Here is the 6" rule from the 2012 GCR:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2012 GCR

Stress-Bearing Panel Definition: Any sheet material that is attached
to the frame by welding, bonding, riveting, threaded fasteners, or
any combination thereof, the centers of which are located closer
than 6 inches. The distance between fasteners is measured on the
surface of the panels. No materials other than aluminum or sheet
steel are allowed for use as stress-bearing panels. Stabilized materials
(honeycomb) are not permitted as stress-bearing panels.

The 6" rule only applied to aluminum or steel panels. Carbon was banned from chassis construction in the past, as it remains at the present.

If Nathan got any kind of ruling saying that the panels were legal, he didn't do it under the frame section of the rules.

Very few people know what is in the compliance reviews that Radon claims to have gotten. There is not a shred of proof that any kind of compliant ruling exists except for people claiming that they do. But, there have been references to the Radon panels as cockpit interior panels, most recently in Jim's post about how they have been trimmed back to only enclose the cockpit is the most recent. My best guess is that Radon submitted a compliance review without revealing all that the panels do and the stewards ruled on the information they were given. This is very similar to what Radon attempted back in 2010 when they got their non-compliant ruling. They submitted incomplete information, a photo that didn't even show all of the panels, and spent paragraphs talking about safety with only a brief reference to what the panels actually do. The ruling was probably based on the 2012 GCR allowance for cockpit interior panels under 2012 GCR 9.1.1.D.8.f. Just because Nathan chose to fasten the panels on greater than 6" centers does not mean that they were frame piecessubject to the 6" rule. If they were frame pieces then they were illegal under the GCR ban on carbon fiber and we don't need to worry about the 6" rules. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the frame rule applied to your car.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2012 GCR 9.1.1.D.8.f

Carbon fiber is not permitted in any external bodywork. Cockpit
interior panels, internal ductwork, air intakes and mirrors are not
subject to this restriction. Kevlar may be used for reinforcement of
any bodywork.

No requirement for greater than 6" between fasteners for cockpit interior panels. I don't think that the 6" rule applied to carbon interior panels in 2012, but I am unaware of whether or not it was ever ruled on.

It is frustrating to have this conversation with you when you don't know how your own car works or what is in the GCR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

That's funny. Carbon panels mounted by the FIA method would massively stiffen the frame and thus be illegal.

No, when you do something that is specifically allowed by the GCR, you are unlikely to be ruled non-compliant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

You are wren really like to skirt this issue, which has NOTHING to do with the material of a panel. Let me ask it again.

Why was the 6" rule eliminated??? What's the benefit to drivers?

I am not trying to skirt the issue and neither is Reid. I am trying to make you understand that you have misunderstood and misapplied the 6" rule in your reading of the GCR.

Reid is a good guy and a very talented driver. I think reading the rule book is fun. None of those things make us the right people to ask this question. Neither of us were involved in the rules rewrite. I have already said that I didn't bother to even send in a letter for the 2013 rewrite because I thought it was a good idea, but I didn't like the changes to the floor rules.

If you really want to know why the 6" rule was removed from the chassis section, you should ask the people involved in this. Why are you asking random people on the internet? Log in to the SCCA webpage and look up the numbers of the people who were involved in the rewrite, call them, and ask them. I made my first phone call about it on Thursday of last week.

Right now, I think that leaving the 6" rule out of the chassis rules was an accident. I intend to send in a letter to the CRB suggesting that they reinstate the rule. But, bringing the 6" rule back will not instantly make the Radon legal, just like it wasn't legal under the old GCR either.
03.03.13, 3:27 PM
Wren

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshall Mauney

I understand that per the rules, this is OK - I even did mine this way in a former car. What I am asking is WHY is it OK? The bodywork isn't attached at enough points, nor does it have enough structural integrity do be able to deflect much of anything in the way of a blow, so creating a very rigid portion of the bodywork doesn't seem to me to accomplish much in the way of driver protection. That is, unless you have some attachment that guarantees that it will stay tied to the frame, which is where this whole thing started.

I'm not trying to take a stance on the Radon, per se. What I am asking is why we seem to be avoiding allowing a safety feature to be integrated into the chassis in the most safe way possible. Today's legality of a feature is not a reliable indicator of its desirability.

To ask the question in as clear a form as possible: "Why do we not allow side intrusion panels to be rigidly attached or bonded to the frame, given that this would seem to enhance driver safety?"

I disagree that the bodywork is not attached at enough points. In a side impact, whatever hits the car is going to be pushing the side panels against the frame. You don't need a whole bunch of fasteners for this kind of impact as once the impact happens, the fasteners aren't where the strength is coming from. The tubes are there to give the panels something to press against. IIRC, USF2000 requires the Elan side impact protection panels to be fastened with zip ties.

Fastening method is much less important than the construction of the side impact protection.

I think that the answer to your question is that rigidly attaching side intrusion panels is not neccesarily going to add safety. I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who builds a car with very few or no tubes between the dash hoop bulkhead and the rear roll hoop bulklhead then complains that not letting them rigidly mount their side impact protection makes it unsafe.

SCCA side impact protection rules allow for competitors to have their cars compliant with FIA side impact protection standards or to go beyond them. I believe that this is a very reasonable place for us to be with tube frames.
03.03.13, 3:43 PM
Jnovak

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

Let me ask it again.

Why was the 6" rule eliminated??? What's the benefit to drivers?

IMO it is simple, I think it is pretty clear that the SCCA changed and tightened up the rules beacause they thought that Radon had created a semi-monocoque composite/tube frame chassis. It is pretty clear that if semi-monocoque chassis were allowed that this chassis design would eventually outdate every other tube framed car in at least 3 classes.

Benefit to the drivers is that their cars still have value and can still be competitive. I also think that the club is convinced that the new anti-intrusion rule is plenty safe as evidenced by the inclusion of the FIA specs which have been extensively tested in Europe.

Thanks ... Jay Novak
03.03.13, 3:47 PM
reidhazelton

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

You are wren really like to skirt this issue, which has NOTHING to do with the material of a panel. Let me ask it again.

Why was the 6" rule eliminated??? What's the benefit to drivers?

I don't give answers to questions I know nothing about. I wasn't there, I don't write the rules, I really have no idea.

However, my understanding is that at under the 2012 GCR the 6" rule never pertained to composites anyway but was only for metallic panals. You can't cherry pick the rules from different areas of the GCR anyway you want for your intended purpose. It's the same with different engines in the same class. Think FA...you can't take the bore and stroke of the big Mazda and the compression of the Toyota and put them together. Doesn't work like that.

I just try to understand the GCR, I don't write it. You're asking one unqualified person to speak for an expert group. To use your gov't analogy from the wonderful debate on what non-ferrous means, you are asking a desk worker at the USPS (me) to tell you what the gov't thinks (the COA, CRB etc) about the meaning of something (in this case why it was removed). I suggest you ask an expert (Subject matter expert) just like the COA did when they wanted a expert, true, and valid reason.

I get the feeling the only thing you will beleive is that the COA did it soley to single out the Radon in a spiteful and evil scheme solely intended to kill any hope of it every being allowed to set a tire on a track anywhere, in any class.

Many mfg's have come up with "interpretations" of the rule book, been decided that it was not within the rules and they moved on. It happens, deal with it. One thing comes to mind is when Jay changed the position of the engine in an F500. It didn't fly, so what. He didn't threaten lawsuits and get his undies in a bunch, he took it like a man and moved on to other things, and has done very well. Heck, he is even offering to help fix the Radon! I'd take him up on that offer if I were a Radon owner. Also in that light, several new mfg's have come along with clever and new ideas in their designs (Mystic, Spectrum, Mygale, Carbir) and they are all competing and doing so within the rules. Clearly, if so many new mfg's are welcomed and encourage to compete (doing so legally) there is no protectionism going on - if that were so we would all be driving around in pre-DB1 era Van Deimens, Raynards, Zinks...whatever.

Sometimes people are wrong, it happens. I'm wrong all the time. Who cares? Deal with it, move on.

I'm going to go kill what few remaining brain cells I have left from reading this with some NASCAR. They are showing drivers getting in physical fights now....time in embrace my inner hillbilly...:mad:
03.03.13, 5:16 PM
Steve Demeter

Jay,

The sentence 3 you cite as allowing carbon anti intrusion panels clearly states "flat".

If I read things correctly, the definition of flat does not apply to the Radon as the panels have both plan view and end view sweep.

Maybe this little tidbit will calm sopme of the waters or not???:greenflag:
03.03.13, 5:24 PM
reidhazelton

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Demeter

Jay,

The sentence 3 you cite as allowing carbon anti intrusion panels clearly states "flat".

If I read things correctly, the definition of flat does not apply to the Radon as the panels have both plan view and end view sweep.

Maybe this little tidbit will calm sopme of the waters or not???:greenflag:

When I read that, I took "flat" to mean it could conform to the frame and have bends, but not ribs to reinforce it...making it more intended for rigidity rather than intrusion protection.

Just what I thought when I read it....
03.03.13, 5:33 PM
dc

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

In my opinion, rules changes should improve safety, increase or level competition, or reduce costs. All I see is removing the competition, and a significant decrease in driver safety.

Very valid concern.

However, you don't design outside of the rules package in the name of "safety" then complain about the rules after the fact. If safety was the main concern in building the car in this manner, then Radon should have lobbied for rules changes to improve the safety of the drivers, then built the car.

Doing it in reverse then complaining that the rules are not safe enough is just a red herring.

Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true. I have a 4-year old—I know this much.
03.03.13, 6:37 PM
rperry

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wren

The 6" rule only applied to aluminum or steel panels. Carbon was banned from chassis construction in the past, as it remains at the present.

You are either not getting my point, or just avoiding it. I am not arguing about the legality of carbon panels. I am arguing the compliance of a nonferrous metal replacement for 2013.

Under the old rules, the Radon could replace their panels with aluminum. The 2013 rules go out of their way to make sure that the Radon cannot so easily be made compliant. This section accomplishes nothing other than preventing the Radon from being made compliant. It is a giveaway to radon's competition at the expense of drivers and radon themselves.

Quote:

o, when you do something that is specifically allowed by the GCR, you are unlikely to be ruled non-compliant.

There is no way FIA panel mounting is legal. It imparts a huge stiffness increase to the frame, which is deliberately outlawed. For all your claiming that I haven't read the rules, you sure keep missing the part that clearly outlaws structural mounting of safety panels. And BTW, your claim of not needing strong mounting to the frame only works in idealized lab type crash settings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

I get the feeling the only thing you will beleive is that the COA did it soley to single out the Radon in a spiteful and evil scheme solely intended to kill any hope of it every being allowed to set a tire on a track anywhere, in any class.

Do a forum search on Radon, and have a look a Wren's posts in every thread that comes up. Hard to say that isn't the case at least for him.

And there are changes in the rules that have no real effect other than that, proposed and pushed forward by very vocal opponents of the car, like Lathrop, Pare, Wren, et al. Not sure how you expect me to believe that they were all benevolent actors who all coincidentally and simultaneously found spare time when the radon was revealed.
03.03.13, 6:40 PM
rperry

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Carter

However, you don't design outside of the rules package in the name of "safety" then complain about the rules after the fact.

And people shouldn't re-write the rules to prevent cars being modified for compliance because their designers simply found potential in the rules that others' hadn't.
03.03.13, 6:45 PM
reidhazelton

aaaaand I'm out.

This is going nowhere.

:blackflag:
03.03.13, 6:48 PM
dc

And therein lies the problem... the SCCA has not changed the rules to prevent the Radon from competing. The Radon was built around the rules and the rules were amended to prevent it from happening again.

The only people who debate this fact are people who bought, designed or manufacture Radons.

I truly have no dog in this hunt. I could care less either way whether the Radon is legal or not. Selfishly, it makes ApexSpeed better if the class has more cars in it than fewer. It's a really beautiful car, but in all of the conversations that I have had, all of the photos that I have seen and with all the FC/FF rules that have been laid out for the past few years, the car has never been legal for SCCA club racing. You can argue semantics and definitions of words all you want, but it doesn't make the car fall within the limits of the rulebook.
03.03.13, 6:58 PM
rperry

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Carter

I truly have no dog in this hunt. I could care less either way whether the Radon is legal or not. Selfishly, it makes ApexSpeed better if the class has more cars in it than fewer. It's a really beautiful car, but in all of the conversations that I have had, all of the photos that I have seen and with all the FC/FF rules that have been laid out for the past few years, the car has never been legal for SCCA club racing. You can argue semantics and definitions of words all you want, but it doesn't make the car fall within the limits of the rulebook.

I don't think the car would have ever been ruled illegal (and if it was, it would have been relatively easy to make it compliant), without the several year long efforts of vehement minority.

Some have unfortunately made sure that making the Radon 2013 legal will be exorbitantly expensive, and for no real reason. There are new rules for 2013 that really don't do anything for the class except this.
03.03.13, 7:04 PM
starkejt

rperry,

You seem convinced that a group of people conspired to ban a chassis to prevent competition against the Citation chassis. If that were the case, why wouldn't they have written a rule banning something like bolt-on roll hoops that made the Van Diemen illegal? The Radon, for all its fancy engineering porn, is simply another mid-pack also-ran. Obviously, this group of conspirators would have to be pretty clever to pull something like this off. Wouldn't they be clever enough to get rid off the chassis that dominates every podium vs. the one that does nothing noteworthy beyond catch fire and cost more?
03.03.13, 7:12 PM
rperry

Quote:

Originally Posted by starkejt

rperry,

You seem convinced that a group of people conspired to ban a chassis to prevent competition against the Citation chassis. If that were the case, why wouldn't they have written a rule banning something like bolt-on roll hoops that made the Van Diemen illegal? The Radon, for all its fancy engineering porn, is simply another mid-pack also-ran. Obviously, this group of conspirators would have to be pretty clever to pull something like this off. Wouldn't they be clever enough to get rid off the chassis that dominates every podium vs. the one that does nothing noteworthy beyond catch fire and cost more?

This is not the best thread for discussing how the car performed but since you brought it up....

The Radon was run in two races by a fast young driver (Fabio Orsolon) and here's how he did in timed sessions:

Fabio wasn't able to test before driving the car. At VIR his fastest laps were P1, P3, P3, P2, P2, P2. At Road Atlanta his fastest laps were P3, P2, P2, P3, P1, DNS (starter), P4, P4. I guess that's mid pack if you ignore most everyone else. With more funding, there is little doubt he would have won races in 2012. I'm not sure he cracked the top 10 in an RFR the previous season.

And the radon has run nowhere near as many development miles as the older chassis. Just some facts ;-)
03.03.13, 7:32 PM
BURKY

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

I don't think the car would have ever been ruled illegal (and if it was, it would have been relatively easy to make it compliant), without the several year long efforts of vehement minority.

Some have unfortunately made sure that making the Radon 2013 legal will be exorbitantly expensive, and for no real reason. There are new rules for 2013 that really don't do anything for the class except this.

It's getting old.
03.03.13, 7:33 PM
starkejt

Try taking "would've" to the bank. I can't see why they would conspire to ban the car that "would've won" if the Pleaides aligned properly and had an inter-stellar lesbian orgy, yet leave alone the indisputably dominant chassis design.

Is it possible that your collective design isn't as good or as legal as you think, or must everything be a conspiracy or some unseen force preventing success? Sometimes the hardest thing for a smart person to accept is that there is no monster in the closet to blame when things don't live up to the plan.
03.03.13, 7:38 PM
Dennis McCarthy

At the risk of redundantly kicking a pretty dead horse at this point for the last time….

As far as FC cars being as safe as they could be made, anyone who has sat in a tube frame FC formula car for more than 30 seconds knows better. That being said, acceptable risk is another whole conversation for a different day.

Deserved or not, the obvious disdain for and campaign against Nathan might have won a temporary battle but is very short sighted and will still lose the war. Some of the players involved may have a real firm grip on the SCCA GCR's but its very evident they don't really know much about expanding sales of luxury items to a very small market. Like it or not the world has changed and the belief that tube frame kit cars are going to sustain FC in the long term is foolish. Some involved in FC may think car sales are good, but as one who makes a living selling to a limited market, I think the volume of new race car sales is pretty pathetic. The only way for FC to survive in the long term is for new modern cars to generate real sales to real buyers, not tire kickers. The demographic that can support the sales of new cars doesn't want to hear about the either the lack of parts or availability of cars. While we all understand the need for rules stability we also need innovation and creativity. Instead of rehashing 30 year old tube frames ad nauseum, a hybrid chassis would open up a whole new world of design possibility and potential sales for all the existing constructors as well. While an old design may work for the $20K FV market, people with enough disposable income to purchase new $100,000.00 cars are also not going to keep buying a 30 year old design at that price point forever. How many new cars have been produced and sold in the past few years? A bigger question that has been left out of the conversation is given the state of the economy, how many people in their right mind will even consider stepping up to the plate to build new $100,000.00+ toys in such a limited market? Carbir and Mygale have been around for a while and have never been serious contenders. Car construction is a side business for Paul and Doug. Ralph and Steve are not youngsters anymore and unfortunately the reality is that all of them could be gone tomorrow. Maybe you think Elan will do a bunch of R&D and tool up to build new cars? After dealing with them, I'd wager if it's not a spec car their not interested. Maybe someone will be foolish enough to think they will become wealthy importing race cars from France or Australia, I have my doubts. It's no big secret that most race car builders state there is no huge profit in building these cars, they are lucky to make a decent living. SCCA kicking Nathan in the nads simply discourages anyone else foolish enough to build cars.
Over the years the last fifteen years I've been fortunate enough to be able to purchase and drive quite a few different cars with various sanctioning groups including SCCA. I currently own several Van Diemens and I might have purchased a new Radon or an equivalent had things gone differently which would have added another car to the club. At present there isn't much reason to buy anything else and I don't see anything on the horizon that will generate the buzz and potential sales the Radon did. Once that initial sales buzz and excitement is gone for any new product, its difficult if not impossible to get back.We'll see where FC racing is ten years from now. and maybe history will prove me wrong, but I doubt it.

While SCCA will lose some entries for alphabet soup racing, Steve is correct in that the Radon will race in the only FC series that matters much anymore.
03.03.13, 7:47 PM
racerdad2

:checkered:
03.03.13, 8:01 PM
Wren

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

You are either not getting my point, or just avoiding it. I am not arguing about the legality of carbon panels. I am arguing the compliance of a nonferrous metal replacement for 2013.

I will freely admit that it is hard to keep up. As you are proven wrong you start ignoring the posts you don't like and moving on to another topic. You were arguing that the 6" rule was replaced with the 8 1/4" fasteners rule in post #354. You were completely wrong about that and I thought we were still discussing that?

It is certainly worth mentioning that the carbon panels were never allowed under the old rules on 6" fasteners. Nathan even claimed on here that he thought it would be legal to fasten them on closer than 6" centers.

Quote:

Under the old rules, the Radon could replace their panels with aluminum. The 2013 rules go out of their way to make sure that the Radon cannot so eaily be made ompliant.

I doubt that you are going to get much sympathy at all, but I really don't think that you are going to get much sympathy if you complain that you are going to have to use tubes to build the chassis in a tube fram class.

Quote:

There is no way FIA panel mounting is legal. It imparts a huge stiffness increase to the frame, which is deliberately outlawed. For all your claiming that I haven't read the rules, you sure keep missing the part that clearly outlaws structural mounting of safety panels.

You are being intentionally obstinate. Here is some free advice on the GCR. When it specifically says that you can do something, especially in the class rules, you can. You would not win a protest of someone who builds panels according to 9.1.1.B.3.e.3 and attaches them according to 9.1.1.B.3.e.4. Period.

Quote:

Do a forum search on Radon, and have a look a Wren's posts in every thread that comes up. Hard to say that isn't the case at least for him.

I am not on the COA, nor do I have any influence on the rules or legality process. Attacking me or my motivations is not going to get you very far. They just don't matter. Multiple people in this thread have attacked my motivations. I gave some background and explained things and there isn't much else that can be done. You are going to believe whatever you want. Anyone who wants to discuss this with me is welcome to contact me by any method they choose. I will be happy to talk about it.
The decisions were made by peoplewho are neutral in this entire thing. The fact that I was the first person to ask these questions is completely unacceptable. They should have been asked back in 2010 when Nathan was warned about them.

Quote:

And there are changes in the rules that have no real effect other than that, proposed and pushed forward by very vocal opponents of the car, like Lathrop, Pare, Wren, et al.

You just keep making things up after being corrected on what the facts are. I told you who proposed the rules, which is published on the SCCA webpage in fastrack. I told you that I did not even send in a letter to support the new rules because there were parts of them that I didn't like. I never proposed anything and I never pushed anything forward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

And people shouldn't re-write the rules to prevent cars being modified for compliance because their designers simply found potential in the rules that others' hadn't.

The designers didn't find potential in the rules. They ignored the rules and tried to shout down and threaten anyone who pointed it out. They can't do that anymore. No one has taken these actions because they were scared of the car.
03.03.13, 8:16 PM
S Lathrop

Dennis:

You have raised a very good point. Why don't we have a more "modern" class or a class that better reflects current technology?

FC is not the class to make over into that class.

The hybrid chassis concept is neither inexpensive nor effective. After the Radon was introduced and it appeared that that would be the new standard, I spent time drawing my response to the Radon. And, yes, I did send my concepts to the CRB for comment. I happen to think that the Radon was not a good approach to the hybrid concept. At the end of the day, I came to the conclusion that building a tube frame inside a composite tub was stupid. And that was the only way I saw to make the concept work. But that was and still is my opinion only and for sure is not the final answer.

Honda has a FA level engine. Now why not use that engine in a F3 type chassis? I have always felt that when FA went to spec cars with the Swift, they should have changed the chassis to F3 specification but with the FA engine package. Why not then set this car as the standard for the FA pro series and do the transition in that program?

I have talked to several knowledgable people about using a F3 chassis as the basis for an FA entry if Mike gets that program going.

Is not the FA the type car you really want? Those guys have the budget for the car you want to sell. The bulk of the FC competitors do not.

Besides the cars I build, I have 20 year engineering in FA and Indy Lights. My knowledge from those cars is what I base my opinion about hybrid chassis concept.

Sorry, I forgot that F3 is in trouble as well.
03.03.13, 8:25 PM
iamuwere

Attachment 37517
Anyone starting to suspect this is actually just some bot writing responses?
03.03.13, 8:25 PM
Dennis McCarthy

Steve, specifically, why do you feel a hybrid chassis isn't feasible?
03.03.13, 9:54 PM
S Lathrop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis McCarthy

Steve, specifically, why do you feel a hybrid chassis isn't feasible?

The difference in the elasticity of a tube structure vs. a composite structure is reason one. It is like bonding bricks with rubber bands vs. mortar.

Years of trying to attach belly pans to tube frames showed me what was necessary to have bonds that lasted more than a season or two. It is a lot of work. It takes 2 days to do the job properly on one of my cars. Welding a belly pan to the bottom of the frame takes a lot less work. In that case, the entire structure is made up of similar materials.

I worked with an Indy lights car that had over 30,000 miles on the chassis (Lola T97). That was a $25,000 part 20 years ago. Even though FC does not need a structure that stout, you would not save much by building down. Too expensive is another reason.

You mentioned knowledge of ones market. I know my market very well. I have shipped 50 cars in a single year. I have had many years when I shipped more than 20 cars. My total production is way north of 200 cars in many classes. I also have gone decades without selling a car, even when my cars were doing a lot of winning. My customers are way more representative of your average FC competitor than the customers you want to attract. To have 30 to 40 car fields requires competitive cars that are affordable by more than just the few guys who can write big checks.
03.04.13, 5:11 AM
rperry

Quote:

You were arguing that the 6" rule was replaced with the 8 1/4" fasteners rule in post #354. You were completely wrong about that and I thought we were still discussing that?

No, I am not. Aluminum panels mounted on 6" centers used to meet the definition of non-structural, and now that rules has been overruled by the new definition of non-structural. A 25 year old rule was arbitrarily replaced by another one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wren

It is certainly worth mentioning that the carbon panels were never allowed under the old rules on 6" fasteners. Nathan even claimed on here that he thought it would be legal to fasten them on closer than 6" centers.

I doubt that you are going to get much sympathy at all, but I really don't think that you are going to get much sympathy if you complain that you are going to have to use tubes to build the chassis in a tube fram class.

People have stated here, and argued to the SCCA, that the radon would be easy to modify for compliance, but this stupid rule runs totally contrary to that. The simple fact is, under the old rules, aluminum would have been a suitable replacement for Radon's panels. That option was deliberately removed to make sure the Radon didn't compete.

I see no other purpose other than to prevent the Radon from running. It certainly does not result in cheaper, more evenly competitive, or safer cars.

Quote:

You are being intentionally obstinate. Here is some free advice on the GCR. When it specifically says that you can do something, especially in the class rules, you can. You would not win a protest of someone who builds panels according to 9.1.1.B.3.e.3 and attaches them according to 9.1.1.B.3.e.4. Period.

Attaching per the rules and per FIA standards is completely contradictory. The rules outlaw significant structural mounting.
03.04.13, 5:37 AM
rperry

Quote:

The hybrid chassis concept is neither inexpensive nor effective. I happen to think that the Radon was not a good approach to the hybrid concept. At the end of the day, I came to the conclusion that building a tube frame inside a composite tub was stupid. And that was the only way I saw to make the concept work.

Why? Just saying you have worked with racecars a long time doesn't make a hybrid chassis ineffective. What I see often as a designer in pro motorsports is that decades of experience stand against good new ideas based on confirmation bias as often or more than real engineering justification. This is especially true for people who were not educated as engineers but have slipped into that role informally. It is rampant in many low budget aero departments.

Quote:

I happen to think that the Radon was not a good approach to the hybrid concept. At the end of the day, I came to the conclusion that building a tube frame inside a composite tub was stupid. And that was the only way I saw to make the concept work.

Tell that to Zee Germans..... When Audi, BMW, and Daimler got together to design a new motorsport chassis, here's what they came up with:

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/w.../zupdtmtub.jpg

http://beyondtheredline.org/wp-conte...Generation.jpg
03.04.13, 8:44 AM
tstarke4

Self-ban

Giving myself another 24 hours.
03.04.13, 9:21 AM
a. pettipas

The current DTM chassis is a full composite monocoque with a (definitely ferrous) roll cage bolted on top, thus it does not constitute a good argument for the spaceframe and carbon panel Radon design.

Besides, if all three manufacturers are required to use a common tub how do we know that this is the best solution?
03.04.13, 9:59 AM
S Lathrop

Robert;

We are talking about low horse power formula cars in a series primarily for hobby racers. The F2000 pro series is successful because it is club racing at its core.

There have been several attempts to push the F2000 to something higher and more expensive, all without success.

This series succeeds because good competitive equipment can be had for about one year's wages for someone earning medium income. Let the costs escalate to 2 x medium income and you will likely have a third of the entrants you now have.

This series succeeds because we have big fields. A good half or more of the cars have the capability to win with the right effort. People can start in the series with very inexpensive equipment and over time upgrade to more competitive cars. Change that balance and you will kill the program.

The standard for performance in F2000 is a 10 year old VD. That is why F2000 is as good as it is.

FSV in the '70's had 30+ car fields, FA had 40+ car fields at one time. Where are those series today? Also look at all the series there are for 20 or fewer cars. Your precscription for F2000 is exactly what killed some classes and keeps the participation in others low. The idea of using F3 chassis for F2000 made way more sense than hybrid chassis, at least to me. And you see how successful that was.
03.04.13, 10:16 AM
racerdad2

Steve is correct. I'm in FC because I'm able to enter the class inexpesively. Learn to set-up the car, drive it quickly & then move up to a newer car. One day, I may be able to buy a new one... It is club racing for middle class racers & I'm thankful for it. Basically, I could buy a new kart & engine for my or our 90 Reynard. Pretty ez choice for me & my son. I get to race as he crews & in a couple of years, he'll be racing as I crew. He is excited to learn the car, the pre-race checks, set-ups & the challenge of the straight cut gear box :) Me, too !
03.04.13, 10:25 AM
Wren

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

This is especially true for people who were not educated as engineers but have slipped into that role informally. It is rampant in many low budget aero departments.

Several things about that.

1. It is ad hominem to try to make your point by attacking someone else's education. Go after the ideas, not the people.
2. While Steve is in good company with several other race car designers who also don't have engineering degrees, experience counts for a lot. Results matter too.
3. I don't think that the issue of whether or not Steve has an engineering degree has come up since you joined the forum. That makes it really hard for me to believe that you aren't posting for other people from Radon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wren

You were arguing that the 6" rule was replaced with the 8 1/4" fasteners rule in post #354. You were completely wrong about that and I thought we were still discussing that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

No, I am not.

I am finding this conversation much too hard to follow. You wrote this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry post#354

The rules changing from "mounted on 6" centers" to "mounted with 8 bolts of 1/4" diameter."

I honestly believed that when you wrote that, you were claiming that the rules changed from mounting on 6" centers to mounting with 8 bolts. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Quote:

People have stated here, and argued to the SCCA, that the radon would be easy to modify for compliance, but this stupid rule runs totally contrary to that. The simple fact is, under the old rules, aluminum would have been a suitable replacement for Radon's panels. That option was deliberately removed to make sure the Radon didn't compete.

Who argued that to the SCCA?

I stated it here, and I think it is still very possible, at least for the side panels. No one has gotten a ruling from the SCCA either way. But, if the rules require a tube structure, there is no room for complaining about that since FC has been and remains a tube frame class.

Quote:

I see no other purpose other than to prevent the Radon from running. It certainly does not result in cheaper, more evenly competitive, or safer cars.

Having that rule does not result in more expensive, less evenly competitive, or more dangerous cars.

Quote:

Attaching per the rules and per FIA standards is completely contradictory. The rules outlaw significant structural mounting.

I see the contradiction, but only if you take an overly literal reading of the GCR. Take it from someone who has spent a lot more time reading and understanding the GCR than most people in the paddock; if someone shows up with 10mm kevlar side intrustion panels mounted in accordance with the GCR and is protested, they will point to the section of the GCR that specifically allows it and they will win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tstarke4

Giving myself another 24 hours.

I think it is time for me to ban myself from replying to rob. My next ban from here is a permanent one and arguing with him is getting way too far off topic and is not productive. It's not worth it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by a. pettipas

The current DTM chassis is a full composite monocoque with a (definitely ferrous) roll cage bolted on top, thus it does not constitute a good argument for the spaceframe and carbon panel Radon design.

You posted this before I could. That frame shown has nothing to do with the Radon chassis. It is much more closely related to an FA.
03.04.13, 10:54 AM
rperry

a. pettipas: The DTM car is just an example (of a different hybrid construction of course) to counter S.Lathrop's point that hybrid chassis aren't effective, or safe. It was this comment in particular, which I should have quoted:

"The difference in the elasticity of a tube structure vs. a composite structure is reason one. It is like bonding bricks with rubber bands vs. mortar."

Despite the different elasticities, DTM uses that hybrid system for cost reduction, and the marriage of carbon and metal is a happy one. And it is very safe. Here in the EU, both the DTM and the involved manufacturers are very well respected for safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

There have been several attempts to push the F2000 to something higher and more expensive, all without success.

As far as I learned while designing the aero, Nathan's composite panels are cheaper than any alternatives. I believe aluminum panels would cost $4k more. But an arbitrary rules change has made even that possibility void. Now, the only option is a $15k+ rework of each entire car. What was that about cost control being important for the class? :confused:

Carbon doesn't necessarily mean more expensive. In fact, if you have a look inside a pro wind tunnel, almost all the parts are made from carbon. It looks like a silly waste of money when you first see it, but when you talk to the manufacturing guys about how to get your part built, it turns out that small production number parts can be a lot cheaper with composites. It's not 1980 anymore - dry carbon is consistently decreasing in price, while metals - especially performance alloys - are going up rapidly.

Quote:

The standard for performance in F2000 is a 10 year old VD. That is why F2000 is as good as it is.

I don't think anyone at Radon ever wanted, or wants, to change that. And really, a carbon safety panel that costs less than the alternatives is not going to do it. If the Radon become totally dominant, or the only way to win a race, the class would become spec, or die, and the number of cars sold would drop to zero. No one wants that. And no one's race standings are going to be affected by an impact panel.

That's why Nathan pushed the boundary on things like safety, and manufacture, but not on more performance oriented topics. The aero rules, for example, have *huge* open gaps in them, and ironically the 2013 rules have introduced even bigger ones. The other aero guy and myself have squeezed performance out of MUCH more tightly written rules from F1, DTM, LeMans, V8 supercars, etc. Yet the aero design of the Radon is simple and conservative. Could we have exhausted the rules to get a lot more aero performance? Sure. But the car was meant to compete with existing cars, not make them obsolete.

What's really stupid in all this, is that the Radon was engineered to compete with cars that are out there, and with the amount of untapped aero potential that could easily be uncovered, it would probably stay that way even if Radon modifies the car for SCCA. It's cost and safety that will suffer - ironic, given how important keeping costs low and safety high are - allegedly.

So, let's not pretend these rules changes are to keep costs low, or improve safety. Rules like the 8 bolt maximum for panels accomplish the opposite. They are there to prevent the Radon from being brought into compliance and nothing more.
03.04.13, 11:00 AM
starkejt

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

metals - especially performance alloys - are going up rapidly.

Yet another thing you have made up out of thin air. Metals are going up rapidly? Please tell that to my bottom line.
03.04.13, 11:28 AM
Wren

I said that I might stop. I just can't quit this thread.:kiss::D

Quote:

Originally Posted by rperry

a. pettipas: The DTM car is just an example (of a different hybrid construction of course) to counter S.Lathrop's point that hybrid chassis aren't effective, or safe. It was this comment in particular, which I should have quoted:

"The difference in the elasticity of a tube structure vs. a composite structure is reason one. It is like bonding bricks with rubber bands vs. mortar."

That is a composite monocoque with a bolted on roll over structure. That is apples and oranges to the Radon. It is apples to apples for the FA's with composite monocoques and bolt on roll over structures in the paddock right now.

Quote:

I believe aluminum panels would cost $4k more. But an arbitrary rules change has made even that possibility void. Now, the only option is a $15k+ rework of each entire car. What was that about cost control being important for the class? :confused:

I don't think that the rules writers had any responsibility when they were writing the new rules to make sure that 7 people with FS cars would be able to compete as FC cars. They had a responsibility to the people in FC who were competing within the rules.

Quote:

Carbon doesn't necessarily mean more expensive. In fact, if you have a look inside a pro wind tunnel, almost all the parts are made from carbon. It looks like a silly waste of money when you first see it, but when you talk to the manufacturing guys about how to get your part built, it turns out that small production number parts can be a lot cheaper with composites.

Now you are talking about where FC participants want the class to go in the future. That is probably a discussion for another thread. If FC participants want to start allowing a whole bunch of carbon parts into the class, they can write their letters. I think that you will find people are pretty happy without them.

Quote:

while metals - especially performance alloys - are going up rapidly.

The metals most commonly used in FC construction are not going up. There are lots of charts out there for historical commodity prices and none of them support that. My direct experience has been the opposite. I already posted what I was paying for aluminum extrusion to this thread.

Quote:

I don't think anyone at Radon ever wanted, or wants, to change that

Posts to this forum say otherwise.

Quote:

Could we have exhausted the rules to get a lot more aero performance? Sure. But the car was meant to compete with existing cars, not make them obsolete.

Are you really claiming that you guys held back on your design and didn't try to build the best car that you could? I find that hard to believe. Given that there are already two pretty big non compliant features in the Radon diffuser, I wonder if your other ideas might have had similar issues.

Quote:

Rules like the 8 bolt maximum for panels accomplish the opposite. They are there to prevent the Radon from being brought into compliance and nothing more.

Again, the 8 bolt maximum was already in the old rules and is not new for 2013. It does not apply to the situation at hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by starkejt

Yet another thing you have made up out of thin air. Metals are going up rapidly? Please tell that to my bottom line.

What would you know about metal prices?
03.04.13, 11:30 AM
rperry

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wren

1. It is ad hominem to try to make your point by attacking someone else's education. Go after the ideas, not the people.
2. While Steve is in good company with several other race car designers who also don't have engineering degrees, experience counts for a lot. Results matter too.
3. I don't think that the issue of whether or not Steve has an engineering degree has come up since you joined the forum. That makes it really hard for me to believe that you aren't posting for other people from Radon.

You love to make wild extensions of what actually happens in the world. I gave a personal anecdote, and I asked Steve to defend his assessment of panel construction with more than just his number of years in the business, which he opted not to do. I have no idea if he has a degree, nor does it matter to the points I am making.

Quote:

I stated it here, and I think it is still very possible, at least for the side panels. No one has gotten a ruling from the SCCA either way. But, if the rules require a tube structure, there is no room for complaining about that since FC has been and remains a tube frame class.

Radon cannot substitute their carbon panels because of this new rule. In 2012 an equivalent metallic panel would be a perfectly legal substitute. If not for this new addition, Radon would (I'm guessing) drop in a metallic panel and go racing. This new provision is blocking the Radon from competing - plain and simple.

Rules writers have a responsibility to improve safety, and regulate cost and competitiveness. Not to prevent new chassis entries.

Quote:

I see the contradiction

That contradiction shouldn't exist. It leaves too much room for subjective rulings. that might become convenient to someone, but it's not how rules should be written.
03.04.13, 12:00 PM
dc

Robert, you keep saying that the Radon's design is exploiting loopholes and grey areas (semantics and wording) of the GCR in the name of safety. If this was truly the case and not just a red herring on Radon's part, then with all of the knowledge of what could be a safer design for an FC chassis, Radon should have approached the SCCA to consider the need for change before designing the car that has been more than controversial and clandestine since day one.

You don't break the rules, then challenge the sanctioning body to change them to fit your car just because you claim them to be safer. That excuse has become laughable at this point. Radon played in between the words (and intent) of the rules and got caught. Deal with it, adapt and move on.
03.04.13, 12:05 PM
S Lathrop

Robert:

The rules are what they are. It is time to go racing.

We each have our opinions as to what actually happened in the rules rewrite process. I don't think anyone, at this point, is going to change their opions.

As to the safety issue, all the claims for the Radon are just that claims. Now I expect that every one did their home work and the claims have a solid basis.

On the other hand, the RFR has been through the FIA crash test. The results indicated that the tube structure they have gives very good protection, especially when combined with FIA approved safety panels for tube frame cars. That is fact.

I just have my experience analyizing my cars after crashes. Given that experience, I feel my cars offer good protection. I also plan to improve on that with the next run of cars.

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page