Printable View
Steve and Dave,
I think you make a good point. Materials that were feared to be too expensive back in 1986, may not be the case in 2010.
Many materials were banned previously because of a fear of escalating costs. But in many cases those same materials may be actually less expensive to fabricate with today in modern shops, than those allowed.
I would think that if a new titanium ARB selling for less than an older steel one would be a good case in point.
The times they are a changin'. :)
Russ,
There is no "new" advantage to a raised nose or stepped floor.
The splitter and raise nose already exist in late model FC cars. The VD Zetec's and apparently other cars as well.
The stepped floor won't improve aero efficency. The best thing it can provide is if you cut a hole in the floor you can get a really nice stiff breeze up your backside.
...all this tortured struggling and for what? At the end of the day it's just another can with wheels on it.
Apparently the current rules allow both. Whats the big deal? This isn't ground effects or trick diffuser.
A lot of this so called "intent" seems to be another one of those you can't do 'cause I said so'....
.
Thanks, Thomas. I can see advantages if the raised nose helps direct air to tunnels (like in FA), or allows a full width front wing (FC). But when it comes to FF, I was a bit perplexed about how it would be better than one continuous, low surface, directing air over and around rather than to a stepped (draggy?) area under the car. I always thought the more air you kept from going underneath, the more DF and less drag. And a stepped floor goes against "smoothness". :confused:
See Russ, for some of us there lies the rub. FF and FC rules (especially chassis) have been joined at the hip since 1986. Supposedly so the chassis could migrate back and forth, manufacturers only having to build one size fits all. But one is an non-aero class, and the other is much about aero. So it lies to reason that over time one size may not fit all. e.g. What if a chassis builder only wants to build FC chassis.
OBTW, all my studies say the jury is still out as to whether a raised nose really is any benefit in a non-tunnel class. Raising the C/G and increasing frontal area may just not be the way to go.
How does an tech inspector or steward NOT familiar with the class know what the intent of a written rule is?
If I'm new to the class, where is all the "intent" archived?
Brian
As a steward, I am cautioned about trying to determine intent, and to accept the rule as written. Therefore, that's what I do--as best as possible. I read the rule and base my decision upon my reading. I call 'em as I see 'em.
...then I let the Court of Appeals figure it out when it goes to appeal. They have been known to ask the Comp Comm for clarification. It's not unlike the US court system, in which (hopefully) first-level judges leave questions of intent and constitutionality to higher-levels.
FWIW, my record of being reversed upon appeal is very low.
Larry Oliver
Since this entire thread is about the Intent of FC rules - where is the Intent written down?
Maybe it could be written down, probably by the mysterious 'Bilderberg-like" group that met in 1986. Hopefully there are still a few of those guys around with their faculties intact.
Although I was not at the secret meeting, I'll begin the Writing of the Intent:
FC is an open-wheel racing class in which design must not deviate from that seen in the 1970's.
Will there be an approval process for the "Written Intent " document?
Could these just be considered a set of better or more detailed rules?
Brian
Quote:
Originally Posted by S Lathrop
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
Froggy, I think you have read Steve's and my intents incorrectly...Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
IMO, Steve was saying "here is an example of what can happen if the intent of a rule is ignored," not that this is what the rule banning Titanium actually means or should mean. Again, Steve, if I am wrong, correct me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
That is what the whole rules clarification that started with Richard and was then taken over by the CRB and FSAC is about. For a long time GCR 1.2.3 has been used to preserve the intent of the rules, and it will be in the future also since no set of rules will be perfect.
The reality is that you cannot parse the words in the GCR like a lawyer. If people had followed through on the push for rules clarification years ago, we could have prevented this mistake. The Radon isn't going to be legal under the 2010 GCR, or under the new rules.
Don't forget the whole thing could have been prevented with a prior ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Wren,
The fact that Richard initated a comprehensive re-write of the rules on his own initiative is more or less tacit admission that the rules, as written, allowed more than the original rules writers perhaps intended - or, at least more than Richard's interpretation was comfortable with. Otherwise, the re-write would not be necessary.
You seem to imply having some kind of crystal ball in your back pocket with regard to the legality of the Radon (which I remind you has not been ruled upon officially), and make a lot of very cut & dried statements to that regard - but the fact that there is so much public debate about the subject means that the issue is far from settled. Declaring it illegal repeatedly from the sidelines will not make it so.
I would humbly submit that if there is intent behind a rule - then the rule writer damn well should have written the rule they intended.
Cheers,
Rennie
The only "intent" I see going on here is the intention of certain people to interpreted the rules however they see fit at the expense of others.
Some people here seem to be making a hell of a lot of assumptions.....
This is how tyrants re-write history...
P.S. Cheers everybody!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
Funny, you could take that to mean either side of this debate.
That was quick.....
I have looked at the pictures, but have not seen the chassis myself, so I am still (as I am sure many people are) confused as to what is purported as illegal on your car. furthermore, I dont see why the clarifications would amke your car illegal either. Can you please explain it in laymens terms without giving away your corporate secrets? I have heard rumours of what does not comply with the rules, but other then the cf panels there is no way to verify.
My feeling on the matter either way, is that you should complete the car and then protest it yourself. There is a history for this procedure. In my dealings with various tech inspectors and the supposed experts at Topeka, you can get the answer you are looking for by shaping the questions the correct way.
So as Ricky Richardo used to say..."splain it to me, Lucy"
John
That's fair. I don't think that anyone has said that the GCR is the greatest thing ever, or that it couldn't be better. The idea here is to make it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rennie Clayton
I've given my reasons. More so than people just saying it is legal to the 2010 GCR. We even got an alarmist thread about how all of our old cars are going to be illegal. That wasn't true. Then I was told my DB6 wouldn't be legal and the rules were somehow a massive change to the requirement on side protection. That was also absolutely untrue.Quote:
You seem to imply having some kind of crystal ball in your back pocket with regard to the legality of the Radon (which I remind you has not been ruled upon officially), and make a lot of very cut & dried statements to that regard - but the fact that there is so much public debate about the subject means that the issue is far from settled. Declaring it illegal repeatedly from the sidelines will not make it so.
Read back through the thread and see that it starts out trying to parse the language of the GCR and find loopholes, then it moves into, "well, why can't we do it this way" or "but that is so outdated" of course we also get a nice dose of "this is so much safer that only people who want to see people injured and killed would ever try to keep it out" next it is "let me write new rules for hybrid construction since this is outside of the rules we have now" then we take a trip through "what are all of these people who trusted their money with someone who has never built a formula car going to do" then Foschi wanders in and makes some funny comments followed by some completely misapplied GCR rules and we return to "modern manufacturing practices make all of this so easy, we should definitely allow all new materials and construction techniques"
There really isn't a lot of debate about legality in all of the nonsense in there. I can only imagine the next phase of this will be either "think of the children" or "if we don't allow carbon panel hybrid construction then the terrorists have already won."
That would be great. The only way that can happen now is for someone to step up and try to capture the intent of the rules in a rewrite/clarification. That person just needs to know that people are going to tell lies about them, attack their character, attack their motivations, just generally **** on them, and they will never receive appreciation.Quote:
I would humbly submit that if there is intent behind a rule - then the rule writer damn well should have written the rule they intended.
I am going to go ahead and hurry to get in line to volunteer for that. I expect the spots to go fast.
Nobody I know likes to engage in character assassination (most have kept their comments general and not singled anyone out). It's not that I don't appreicate people I just wish it had never been done. Because I keep asking myself why was it done? That seems to speak to the true "intent".
The problem with this entire "re-write" has been and ALWAYS will be the lack of transparency in how it was done.
They was no member input up-front, no discussion about how the rules should be interpreted. It was simple done behind our backs and voile.......thrown out at us like an oncoming freight train. Now we have this ticking time bomb situation that unless we do something about it and fast it goes off.
How do they know that these new rules they invented follows the original intent? Did they go back in a time machine to 1986? And who cares if it does anyway? This is 2010 not 1986. At least last time I checked. I'd loved to go back to 1986 and start over.
This method of ambush rules "clarification" or whatever else you want to call it is simply not on. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever. It tends to tick people off.
Not allowing all of us to be part of the process....now that's being "dis-enfranchaised"
P.S. Cheers Everybody!
Hi John:Quote:
Originally Posted by John Robinson II
I'll try to answer without giving away too many details.
We have a structural floor pan of 16 gauge 4130 steel that is welded along its entire perimeter to the required lower main frame tubes. It complies with the GCR in every way, including with the roll cage rules, and has curvature of less than one inch, but doesn't happen to be horizontal to the ground.
We have an undertray that is separate from the structural floor pan (like many cars) but is roughly horizontal and complies with the 1" deviation requirement in the FC rules.
All completely legal under the 2010 rules, as everyone who has seen it agrees, but different from existing FC cars. It does allow a true raised nose. This has led some people to call it contrary to the "intent" of the rules. Of course, everyone you ask has a different version of that mysterious "intent." The proposed new rules require the floor pan to be "approximately parallel to the ground" (whatever that means) and would make our car illegal.
Good suggestion, and I'm certainly aware of the self-protest procedure. One nice feature is that the finding of the Court of Appeals is kept confidential if they find your car legal. ;)Quote:
My feeling on the matter either way, is that you should complete the car and then protest it yourself. There is a history for this procedure. In my dealings with various tech inspectors and the supposed experts at Topeka, you can get the answer you are looking for by shaping the questions the correct way.
Nathan
Please don't think that I am saying that our process is the best way to do things, but how would you do it? One giant meeting at a specific place and time? Telecon? Internet forum (which I think would be awesome)? That's a serious question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
The rules clarification has been released for member input. That is allowing you to be part of the process. These rules are not set in stone and they are not already passed.
I just don't think this quite meets the standard of being thrown at you like a freight train.
See, this is what I don't get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
This proposal IS allowing you to be part of the process. This is a proposal to the members, requesting input on what has been constructed. This isn't a new rule set in the 2011 GCE. If you don't like it or do like it, now is your opportunity to be part of the process and state your case one way or the other. It's as transparent as any club is going to get to it's members, unless you run for an elected position with the SCCA.
This isn't jammed down' anyone's throat and isn't set in stone. There is no possible way to have transparency on any private party individual who is working to make the rules more clear on everything the SCCA does. If I was working on new wording for a CGR rule to propose to the SCCA for 2011, why would I bring it to the club members to convolute the start of the process? Thus, you have the exact same opportunity to bring an idea or concept to the SCCA on your own, and not involve anyone else.
The SCCA BoD and CRB will take your suggestion into consideration and either table the idea or offer it up to discussion to the members through their monthly newsletter—as has been done here.
What else would you like to see in the hands of the club members? And how would you suggest transparency from every concept to the point where it is presented to the members?
I've read it all. The meandering nature of the discussion has no relevance to the facts of legality - regardless of how far down the rabbit hole it goes. And neither is the fact that the discussion has wandered an indictment against the legality of the design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
In my opinion, it is hardly tortured logic to consider the panels as residing in the space which contains the driver (i.e., the cockpit), and therefore legal per the rules.
Well, you can't have it both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Cheers,
Rennie
Ironic....what was his intent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
Doug,
It's not allowing me to be part of the process. It's forcing me to be reactionary. That's not being part of "a process". The way this is structured there is no negotiating . There is no discussion of permitted exceptions and no real way to input any either (you can't write laws via email...democracy doesn't work that way).
In this situation there is only a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down". That's more akin to being a spectator at a gladiator event, not part of "a process".
You're basiically telling me that if I just started making up rules on my own (which is exactly what happened here) and then submitted them to the CRB everyone would find them in the next Fastrak? C'mon on!
P.S. Cheers Everyone!
P.S.S. I don't have a process to work from but I know I wouldn't start by attempting a complete re-write of the rules in a vaccum.
P.S.S. Did a mention Cheers Everyone!
I think I'll pour a Martini now...:beer:Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
It may well be that drinking is the only logical thing to do in this situation.
Cheers,
Chris C.
They have to make it through the CRB/FSAC part of the process, but that is absolutely correct. I've done it, it isn't hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
I disagree, but I understand your point. The panels still aren't allowed to do other things where carbon is prohibited. It isn't like the Radon guys had some amazing revelation that no one has ever had before, I know there were people trying to run stressed panel construction/hybrid construction all the way back to the early 90's. They weren't allowed then either. Last week I got an interesting lesson in the history of stressed panel construction from an SCCA old timer, very enlightening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rennie Clayton
The CRB and FSAC had a hand in writing the rules clarification and they consider it a clarification, not a huge paradigm shift. So, my guess is that the rules clarification represents their interpretation of the 2010 GCR. Since the COA goes to them for help on protests, I would expect to have basically the views contained in the rules clarification. I don't think my opinion that the car is illegal per the 2010 GCR is much of a stretch at all.
I'm not trying to have things two ways. The lies and misrepresentations of people were out of line.Quote:
Well, you can't have it both ways.
[quote=Thomas Copeland;267931In this situation there is only a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down". That's more akin to being a spectator at a gladiator event, not part of "a process".[/quote]
Ahhh yes, but the SCCA is not a government or a Democracy. It is a privately run club. If you don't participate in the process, then you don't have too much room to complain when things don't go your way. Like it or not, the system is the way it is. If you don't like it, run for a Board position or become a member of the CRB.
There is no promise of transparency or member involvement by the SCCA in regards to rules, or anything else for that matter, in the GCR. You are not obligated to be a member of the club nor follow it's rules.
I still don't understand how you can expect/want full transparency from the very beginning of an individual's quest to have a rule clarified or changed. Should all potential ideas for changes in the GCR be prefaced with a personal phone call to every member to ask if they have an opinion or not? It's a preposterous notion to think that every potential rule change from the moment of it's inception be discussed with the entire membership base before putting it in writing as an "official proposal" in FasTrack.
In this case, a rudimentary "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" is really all you are going to be able to gather outside of a few passionate letters from people who are directly effected by the change either way. You do have an opportunity to write a letter or pick up a phone and state your case—that's far more than most people have in their day-to-day lives.
I'd still like to hear a reasonable alternative to the SCCA rules process that is so clandestine and manipulative.
Uhh, yeah, that's exactly how it works. How do you think F1000 became part of the SCCA?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
Wren,Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Unfortunately, you are basing your opinion on a tenuous "I'll know it when I see it" definition of what constitutes stressed panel construction. All tube frames flex - by strict definition, any car in the paddock with bodywork securely mounted to the frame could fit within the definition of stressed panel construction, given that the mountings will transfer stress from the steel tubes to the panels. Are they illegal? Of course not. But what makes them non-stressed panels? Mounted on greater than 6" centers - as is delineated for stress-bearing panels on the chassis, and for mounting reinforced kevlar bodywork?
The history is largely non-relevant, though I am familiar with most of it. What matters is the rules as they are written.
Cheers,
Rennie
Funny, I was funny?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWINtUCshxY
and I don't remember talking about any GCR rules.
Wren, you wrote:
Then I was told my DB6 wouldn't be legal and the rules were somehow a massive change to the requirement on side protection. That was also absolutely untrue.
Great news! But would you explain in detail. Other DB6 owners that are currently homologated only in FC are worried they won't be able to be homologated into FF during 2011. You seem to have researched this. What is the correct answer? They would like to know so that they can follow the same path.
Who should they speak with for this reassurance? Help us out here if you know the answers. What is the process? Names? Contacts?
Can I see the car? Nathan? Alan? Bob? Chris? Glen? I'll be at NHMS this weekend in North garage 6 with the antique.
Attempts to write better rules that incorporate the undefinable 'intent' are all well and good.
But the rules are not carved in stone, the rule book is a living document. For instance, as the engine parts become unobtainable you allow in new parts. When new safety technology is developed, like HANS devices, the rule book is changed to allow them.
So instead of fixing the FC rules to somewhere around 1986, I'm sure you agree with the process that allows occasional updates.
Now you have to decide whether to allow a slightly different tube frame, ie. the Radon idea of increased side impact protection, using materials not available in 1986. Of course this could lead to some interesting and creative new car designs. Some are for that, some against.
I think that's what this all comes down to.
PM on the wayQuote:
Originally Posted by Rennie
No, it was just that after you started commenting we were told about how the GCR front impact rules allowed carbon sidepods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Foschi
John, why didn't you ask this 335 posts ago?!Quote:
Originally Posted by John Robinson II
After all these posts, now we get to hear about the funky floor.
Cool. Creative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussMcB
If what's coming out next is that the floor is above the roll hoop I'm done with all youz guys. The West Coast people will be agreeing " Hey, I can see that being legal, what's your problem, do you want stone tires like Fred Flintstone had to use?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Pick up the logbook and turn to the first white page and look at the top. The supplemental bracing and fore/aft bracing are listed right there. They should be the same. Mine are listed as 1.25" OD and .126" wall thickness.
Also, it would be possible to drill a small hole and measure. I would be happy to help anyone with this at the ARRC.
The rule under D.7.B was only changed to spell out what is meant by equivalent. Everything else is exactly the same. The proposed rules clarification truly did not change anything under D.7.b.
"If what's coming out next is that the floor is above the roll hoop" by rule D.8.d.1 and 2 it could be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stohr
Many of the mysterious 'Bilderberg-like" group are still alive and working in the industry. Both Ralph Firman and Dave Baldwin were at the meeting. Some one told me that they have a new car for FB and are working on an FC. At last years Formula Ford celebration I ran into many more of the people who sat at the table.
One of the guys from that meeting who was a member of the competition board and was considered one of the experts on formula and sports racing cars still has a racing transmission shop. He actually did a lot of the leg work in getting the ideas down on paper.
In 1986 one of the big issues was whether to allow aluminum monocoque construction into FF. Funny how little things change. Also look at the out come of that debate.
Aluminum chassis ! why not? you made a decision to obselete every FF made in your 1986 meeting, you laid the seeds for Club Ford and vintage Ford. Not that I disagree, allowing more modern FF chassis like the Swift DB1 moved the class into the future a little ways. It was a brilliant design. And Club Ford and Vintage Ford have grown to be very strong classes.
So why not do it now?
I'm suggesting opening up the chassis rules for FC. But I would do it alongside new SCCA rules for chassis safety. Some kind of variation on FIA testing, some kind of rules that the average American club racer can deal with. Maybe the SCCA would offer some kind of assistance.
I fear you guys are making the same mistakes as government, you think more rules and regulation will stimulate the class. Actually less rules is a better way to go. Less words in the rulebook mean less splitting of hairs and fewer loopholes.