...are posted: http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472
Printable View
...are posted: http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472
In FF for the Honda you can now use a Quicksilver clutch friction disk. Anyone know the differences between the Quicksilver and the stock Honda disk?
The only difference is the QS disk has a unsprung hub.Quote:
Originally Posted by BWC54
Seriously, please stop changing FC rules.
Does anyone want spec lines and the sandbagging/complaining that are going to come along with it.
Everyone write your letters.
Does it use the same input shaft as the Honda clutch?Quote:
Originally Posted by eospeed
This is a good rule. I'm tired of changing clutch discs every 5 or 6 weekends, always in the middle of an event. The Pro Series allows the QS disc which eliminates any durability issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by eospeed
For info, the disc itself, generally does not fail, but the broken pieces of spring get jammed in various places, which causes the problems.
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by Wren
SteveO
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOseth
Thanks for the info. The clutch seems like the right way to go, I just wouldn't want to have to purchase another input shaft.
-Break-
Every FF/FC competitor needs to go read these rules. They are vague, poorly written and a complete departure from what FF and FC have been for the last 40+ years. These rules seem intended to try to force FF and FC down different paths. I know these rules would make my DB-6 illegal and probably a whole lot of other cars as well. Everyone needs to read these rules and go write your letters to the CRB. Copy the BOD as well. I'm really struggling to understand why the CRB thought this was a good idea.
The proposed instrument panel attachment rule (no less than 6" centers) would make my panel attachment illegal (trapezoidal pattern with the fasteners on the left and right edges 4.5" apart). It makes no sense, since mine is mounted on rubber isolators, so it sure can't stiffen anything...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
The rest of the FC proposals seem like they are written in lawyerese, but I think I see the point.
Yep. I don't know when the rules for allowing stressed panels in the front and main roll hoop bulkheads came in to the GCR (1986?), but I know that my DB-6 takes advantage of it to mount the carbon fiber panel I use as a dash. Every other car I have ever owned mounted the dash on less than 6" centers as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
Did the CRB forget this? Did they decide that our dashboards were too much of a threat now?
I suspect that rule is an oversight that comes down to just not knowing what is in the GCR. But, the rest of these rules seem designed to completely change FC.
I will admit that I don't see the point. I am going to take the advice I gave someone else in another thread and call the CRB tonight.Quote:
The rest of the FC proposals seem like they are written in lawyerese, but I think I see the point.
Wren
How would this make the DB-6 illegal?
I do see that the path the FC will be going down, which will now include a carbon semi monocoque tub. Not what the class needs. Why make the change from having to perform the same without the panel to now saying all it has to do is roll without the side panels?
Jeremy
My dash is installed on closer than 6" centers. I suspect most people have this problem as it has been specifically allowed in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Germg
Quote the minutes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Germg
"The chassis must be capable of rolling without any such frame-exterior panels installed."
I missed that. Thanks for waking me up. That is, indeed, a very weak and meaningless requirement.
I agree that these proposals are poorly thought out.
I did not think of the dash mounts but That will make my car illegal. 5.75 between the blots that hold the dash on with lord mounts. The dash mounts really, not like the dash is holding anything but switches and the steering column
I just sent mine, mentioning these issues.
------------------------------------------------------
Please reconsider these proposals. They are, IMO, not well thought out.
There are at least 2 glaring problems:
1. Limitation on instrument-panel fasteners to no less than 6" apart - this will make a huge # of cars illegal, including mine (Citation 95SFZ). The side pairs of rubber-mounted panel fasteners are only 4.5" apart.
2. Exterior panel wording - "The chassis must be capable of rolling without any such frame-exterior panels installed." This is essentially meaningless. A frame so weak as to not be able to carry the driver could pass this requirement. That would allow the exterior panels to be a major component in the frame stiffness - BAD idea. It would lead to expensive, semi-monocoque, chassis'.
----------------------------------------------------------
So I picked up the phone and no one is talking about anything. It's the most close lipped response I have ever gotten.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
I guess I can see the point better now too and where it came from and where it is going.Quote:
Originally Posted by Germg
well now you know the results of a certain lawsuit and what its doing to the rule book
I just started paying more attention to this newly proposed rule. I had a problem with the last rule as well as "perform to the same level or degree" is pretty vague also.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
This rule doesn't mention that the car has to have all of the required chassis components, which something that the first semi-monocoque chassis lacks. It doesn't mention whether the car has to remain at the same ride height or measurements. So if the car drops down to the limits of the sphericals in the A-arms or everything is wobbling around but can still be rolled around the paddock then it is legal? there needs to be a lot more wording here to strengthen this.
Yes it doseQuote:
Originally Posted by Wren
9.1.1.B.5.a states that the full width of the lowest surface licked.... by the airstream... is the reference surface.
This would seem, at least to me, that sidepod floors and the front portion of most diffusers are now part of the reference surface. How does this account for hte fact that neither of these are almost never flush perfectly with the bellypan, the usual reference surface.
What am I missing, if anything.
Steve:
The sentence actually states reference area, not reference surface. Floorpans, sidepod bottoms, forward sections of diffusers, etc, have always been part of the defined reference area. I think that you are confusing reference area with reference surface. The reference surface is defined by the car owner (or the manufacturer) as the zero point for measuring compliance of the reference area.
I sent my letter in today.
So it seems. It's interesting to trace the chronology of this whole thingQuote:
Originally Posted by KevinFirlein
-it's a conspiracy, go back to the 2012 rules
-oops, our car was never legal
-let me rewrite the rules to: 1. Make a whole bunch of currently legal cars illegal 2. Separate FC and FF from each other 3. redefine the future of FC to completely change the path that it will go down
All FF and FC drivers should be writing their letters. Even if you aren't in FF and FC, you should be writing a letter. This is messed up.
After taking some time and read through the proposed "rules" changes, I have come to the conclusion this whole thing is bullshi!. It is one thing to take your ball and go home because you can't play by the code of the playground that has been in effect for 20+ years, but it is another thing entirely to go cry to your mom and bring her back to make everyone else play your game. Frankly, I am pretty pissed.
If we are to assume that FF and FC chassis rules are suppose to go hand in hand, then this would make my car illegal. If we are to assume that this "rules" change is to sever the ties between FF and FC then that will drastically hamper constructors efforts in designing new cars. Mfg's use a common chassis for FF, FC, and FB. From what I have heard from several Mfg's over the years, that is really the only way to make it profitable, and just barely. Now, if you take FC out of the mix, and you have to design a unique car just for FC, do you think any new FCs will come out? No. No mfg is going to design a unique FC chassis when that class is near death in SCCA. FC has had one foot in the grave and one foot on a banana peel for a few years now, and this would be the push to finally send it to it's death.
And...who ever wrote these has no business writing rules. "Rollling"? WTF is that? Ambiguous much? That section alone makes it pretty easy to make a semi monocoque chassis that (if someone ever made one that was better than the current crop) could have a huge advantage.
I am writing my letter against this tonight. It is pretty clear to see that this only benifits one person who could not play by the rules to begin with, and at the expense of the whole of SCCA and the current 100's of cars.
We all know what this is about. I see that it is a "what do you think" item. We simply need to Make sure that the CRB and the BoD understand what the MEMBERSHIP of this club wants.
It is clear to me that these proposal are intended to allow a certain car be made legal.
Send your letters. About 1000 should get the job done.
I will be sending my letter in ASAP.
Ok...I don't write many letters and am having a hard time finding the link to submit to. Can someone please post the link for submittals?
Thank you Peter.
Letter #13401 submitted. Obviously, against.
Letter # 13398 submitted FC rule changes against.
Letter #13390 against.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
Maybe we need to come up with some other forms of compromise? I know that the SCCA has said no new classes, but maybe we could give these guys their own class? Alternately, how about if we just decide to give anyone who enters a Radon a trophy? A participation trophy would be as meaningful as getting a trophy for running your car in a class where it took a lawsuit to make your car legal. I volunteer to pay for these trophies.
To discuss the rules more. The changes to the rules for panel attachment are a mess. They restrict the panel to attachment no more than every 6", but they allow the panels to be attached however they want to other carbon panels. The 6" restriction won't be much of a burden if the frame is there to meet the minimum requirement for the frame and the panels are doing most of the work (see attached photo). It's also not clear to me whether or not we would be allowed to sandwich the panels between suspension mounts and the frames.
This photo makes me wonder. Did they every add the required diagonal leg protection frame pieces (2014 GCR 9.1.1.3.c, 2012 GCR 9.4.5.c.2 & 9.1.1.D.7.a). I know they were warned by the SCCA in 2010 and I hope they would have gone back and added basic required safety parts of the frame.
Don't need to write on the clutch disk. It's a done deal effective 1/31/14.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bam Bam
I'm a new boy in this game—2013 was my first season of racing ever, but as I'm in a Formula Ford and as I can see the advantages of having a group of classes that are close enough in some of the basic rules to make it easier for manufacturers to stay in business...
...I too have sent a letter(/request) to the CRB via crbscca.com indicating my opposition to this rule change. (Letter #13411)
My I also suggest to FC competitors:
It may be frustrating to do, but if you're truly opposed to this change and it goes through anyway: refuse to race with Radons.
I've got about 30 years on ya. Historically,.....That doesn't work in SCCA.Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by alangbaker
Letter 13413 sent against rule change.
Against, #13417
Quote:
Originally Posted by alangbaker
I think this is a step too far. I don't think that the Radon owners are the real problem. I honestly feel bad for them. They bought their car in good faith that it was going to be legal, now they are stuck with their cars in some kind of GCR limbo. I would be surprised if any of them are happy that they decided to go down this path.
Club entries are also pretty rare for the Radon. The owners tend to have most of their entries in the pro series where they can expect to be allowed to run regardless of compliance.
Until now, no one associated with the Radon camp has posted any reply to this post. I think it's that old adage about getting into a pissing match. I don't actually own a Radon, but I've worked with the Radon folks quite extensively, and I think that for the sake of clarity, I should try to correct some of the "facts" that have been circulating on this thread.
I think the Radon is a good car. It's carbon side panels offer much more protection than a conventional car against side impacts, and in general, I think it's a much safer car than the ones that have been manufactured unchanged for the last 20 years or so. It is admittedly a novel and new design based on modern materials and manufacturing techniques - this stuff does in fact change over time. I sort of doubt you're using a 20 year old mobile phone design, yet everyone seems to think that we should stick to old race car designs. That's fine - that's what vintage racing is for.
I also think that I'm not sure what your point is - refuse to race with Radons? Why? Are they several seconds per lap faster than the cars made by the other manufacturers? Ummm - no, in fact no Radon has won a race. They're competitive - but appear to be no more so than a properly prepared car from another manufacturer - so I'm trying to figure out why you're so opposed to them - a matter of principle, I guess? Or just the fact that you don't want those nasty Radon folks to make a living selling race cars?
In any case, as I said, I'd like to correct some of the things that have been circulated.
1. The Radon was not designed in a vacuum. It was designed with extensive consultation with then members of the FSRAC and the CRB, including Dave Gomberg and Mike Eakin.
2. Despite anyone's statements to the contrary, the Radon meets the 2012 rules. Several CRB members and the SCCA COA have verified this is true, as well as at least three nationally licensed tech inspectors. The Radon has never been protested, challenged, or found to be illegal by any scrutineer or official.
3. The SCCA has already allowed the first seven Radons to be raced as delivered, and repeatedly stated, both publicly and privately, that they are compliant with the 2012 rules. If they were unsafe in some way, the SCCA would not allow them to run. And, did I mention that I don't see one of those cars out there kicking your ass, do I? If they are, it's probably not the car - since some Citations and V-D's are doing just fine.
4. The 2013 rules made several features of the Radon illegal, and are quite ambiguous. The updated rule set allows them, with the allowance for competition adjustments in the event that they somehow magically start kicking your ass despite the fact that haven't done that so far. The new rules proposal eliminates the possibility of someone else using carbon composites in some other way in an effort to kick your ass (i.e., to paraphrase a post on one of the many other threads on this subject, to prevent someone who actually knows what he's doing to build a car using carbon composites).
5. Since this rules change doesn't affect any other cars, and since the Radons aren't changing the landscape of FC racing, even at the pro level, and since there's a provision for a competition adjustment, I'm having a hard time understanding the opposition.
Cheers,
CC
Is there somewhere I could read this public statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Camadella
Where are these public statements? Can I get a name? A link? A pdf?Quote:
Originally Posted by Camadella
In all of the arguments regarding what does ferrous/non-ferrous mean or is the Radon legal, the Radon guys have been absolutely unwilling to share the compliance review information.
I had a Radon owner tell me that they asked for compliance on the bulkhead, the floor, and the panels. Was there something else that they asked for a compliance ruling on?
Why won't Radon share their compliance information if it is really public already?
---Now on to everything else---
Why would anyone think that this is about money or people not wanting Radon to participate in the racecar market? Radon is not the only company new to the SCCA formula car market. Have companies like Phoenix, Spectrum, Philly, or anyone else run into problems? The reality is that this is about compliance and not trying to put anyone out of business. If Radon had shown up with something compliant to the GCR then there would have never been a problem.Quote:
Or just the fact that you don't want those nasty Radon folks to make a living selling race cars?
I suspect that lap times play a much larger role in whether or not the Radon guys will be able to make a living selling race cars.
As Nathan pointed out on apexspeed years ago, an opinion from someone like Dave means just as much as an opinion from me or any other member. In hindsight, you might have done well to listen to some of the contrary opinions. It could have saved everyone a lot of money and hassle.Quote:
1. The Radon was not designed in a vacuum. It was designed with extensive consultation with then members of the FSRAC and the CRB, including Dave Gomberg and Mike Eakin.
Prove it.Quote:
2. Despite anyone's statements to the contrary, the Radon meets the 2012 rules.
I have shared with the forum a ruling from the COA that non-ferrous in the GCR only applies to metals and that there is a difference between the rear roll hoop and the main roll hoop(that surprised me too) and that a diffuser designed in the manner of the Radon is not compliant with the 2012 GCR. Do you have a ruling from the COA that disagrees? If you have that ruling, why wouldn't you share it?
I suspect that sharing information that proves your car is compliant would go a long way towards getting people to write in support of the proposed Radon rules for FC.
Fun fact: One of those three nationally licensed tech inspectors is where I have gotten my information on what was illegal on the Radon. He shared his "serious concerns" with a lot of other people.Quote:
Several CRB members and the SCCA COA have verified this is true, as well as at least three nationally licensed tech inspectors. The Radon has never been protested, challenged, or found to be illegal by any scrutineer or official.
These two points sum up what is the biggest problem with this rules proposal: Competition Adjustments. All that adding competition adjustments to the class will do is open the door to sandbagging and whining.Quote:
4. The 2013 rules made several features of the Radon illegal, and are quite ambiguous. The updated rule set allows them, with the allowance for competition adjustments in the event that they somehow magically start kicking your ass despite the fact that haven't done that so far. The new rules proposal eliminates the possibility of someone else using carbon composites in some other way in an effort to kick your ass (i.e., to paraphrase a post on one of the many other threads on this subject, to prevent someone who actually knows what he's doing to build a car using carbon composites).
5. Since this rules change doesn't affect any other cars, and since the Radons aren't changing the landscape of FC racing, even at the pro level, and since there's a provision for a competition adjustment, I'm having a hard time understanding the opposition.
Formula Ford and Formula Continental are formula classes. The entire concept of these classes is that everyone gets the same set of rules and whoever shows up with the best car/driver combination wins.
From Nathan's own words, he was trying to obsolete the field when he was developing the Radon. The great thing is that trying to do that is exactly what a car builder is supposed to be trying to do. If he had worked within the rules to try to do that then no one would have any room to complain. It would just mean that everyone else needs to work harder. It's been done in other classes.
People need to notice that this proposed rule set opens the door to specification lines for the class. This is not what FF and FC are about. People should be able to show up with a better mousetrap and not have to worry about getting a lead trophy or smaller restrictor. Their mousetrap just needs to be compliant to the rules.
Everyone, please go write your letters about this subject.
www.crbscca.com
Here is a whacky idea. If there are the super secret, sealed, magic papers that say the Radon was, is, and will be legal, and SCCA CRB, COA, C3PO, R2D2 have said that it is....why not share the magic documents. Simply saying you have proof of something is not proof.
If I had these papers, I would have shared them way, way before I got a lawyer involved and started suing the bajeezus out of everyone and anyone.
It is getting old claiming these exist, when no one has ever seen them. Sharing them now will likely do little good to change public opinion of Radon (not to be confused with Radon owners) as Nathan and the lawsuit has tainted his company beyond repair.
Also, these rules affect EVERY car in FC, FF, FB, albiet indirectly in some instances. Like Wren said, this is FORMULA racing. Not lead trophies. Another change to the code of the playground we have all played by for 20+ years, and changing it because someone can't and won't play by those rules is insulting to those that have.
Not only does the rules change affect those classes, but this hole dookie storm affects everyone in SCCA. We are all paying for this farce to continue in legal proceedings. Sure, amortized over 55,000 members it might be $5 a member all said and done, but it is still $5. I would rather donate that $5 to the Worker Fund than the BS fund.
Not to cloud the issue with facts but I think I need to point out there is a spec line in the GCR for the car (why would they put one in for an illegal car?),
I've asked numerous officials, several members of the BoD, and they all confirmed my Radon was legal to race as delivered. Two members of the CRB tasked with inspecting the Radon in January 2013 looked at your car and confirmed publicly it was legal per the 2012 rules.I have more than myself as a witness to those conversations.
Statements and claims that are being made are not based on ANY facts whatsoever. People are making statements that have never been up close to one, that have never sat in a CRB or any other meeting of the boards that run our club and yet seem to be an authority on Radon's.
I wish I had the keen insight and knowledge on things that people have never seen up close and meetings they've never attended.
I like my car, I plan on driving my car. I can actually speak to the actual car because I own and drive it and have been more than 100 feet away from an actual radon.
There is a lot more I'd like to say but I think I'd rather be more productive with my time.
I would ask that anyone who reads this thread dig deeper, look at the FACTS, ask someone who owns a radon to take a look at it. I think you'll find it may not be the fastest car on the grid but it is extremely well built, well thought out and a lot safer than what is currently on the grid in my opinion. Take close look yourself and see what you think.
It is 50 lbs heavier than my VD. Most of that weight is side protection panels. I accept the fact the I chose safety over weight hence performance deficit, but it is whats important to me. I have a bad back and carpal tunnel. The seating position is laid back more than my VD. When I get out of the car, I don't feel sore. I can't recite the GCR like others but I do feel at the time it was deemed to be legal at the time it was built. I do have docs from the SCCA stating so. I promised Nathan I would not share that doc and I will keep that promise until he tell me otherwise. If any board member is on this thread they can confirm what I have stated on the legality at the time.
Whatever happens, I strongly recommend that people come and take a close look at an actual car before they read into any statements make by people who have not. I am willing to let anyone who cares take a look at anything they want. I am willing to show them the doc I have from the scca, but not let them take a copy. If you have done that, I think you can actually make statements that are based on facts not innuendo and hypothesis.
I am speaking for all the other Radon owners, but I am sure all of them would welcome anyone who asked to look at the car, with the GCR in front of them and the doc from the SCCA there too. We all have it. Lets be sensible, factual and not let others make decisions for us based on information that is not factual.
I would also add that times are changing newer chassis are coming out. We are not a vintage class. CF or Club Continental is the way to go is you want to run and old formula car. Maybe it's time to look at things that make our class better. The radon didn't break the mold and kill the grid. It is a safer car than what else is out there albeit not faster. Be open to looking at things that move the class forward and make things safer. A man in the master class in a chassis that was designed many years ago clobbered the grid in the pro series. Proof the Radon or any of the other stuff that was new on the grid didn't make the other cars obsolete. In the end we all vote with our wallet. If you don't like the car, don't buy it. Real simple.
Back to the real world folks. All I ask is that you make an balanced and informed decision based on facts. Everyone on this thread has enough car smarts to read what I have and look at my car. You can make an educated judgement that will be based on information that is factual.
I've pissed away WAY more time on this that I should have but there are always two sides to every story. This is mine.
Now I must get back to the real work. Wren, pm is you want to argue. I'll get to it when I have time.
Jimmy Radon Serial# 5
Just for evidence, Citation, Metrik, Firman and Van Dieman ( Elan ) are all evidence of companies that well sell you band new cars that are perfectly legal. I am quite tired of this 'vintage' car argument BS , especially since the 01 VD is still one of the fastest cars on the track and can be fitted with perfectly legal anti intrusion panels per the GCR. Nothing but the facts ma'am.
Which officials? "Legal to race" in what context? Which two members?Quote:
Originally Posted by jimh3063
Can you share his reason for not wanting a document made public which would (if it actually said what you claim it does) completely end this controversy?Quote:
I can't recite the GCR like others but I do feel at the time it was deemed to be legal at the time it was built. I do have docs from the SCCA stating so. I promised Nathan I would not share that doc and I will keep that promise until he tell me otherwise. If any board member is on this thread they can confirm what I have stated on the legality at the time.
So hypothetically, you'd let every single person on Apexspeed see this document...Quote:
I am willing to show them the doc I have from the scca, but not let them take a copy.
...but you won't simply scan it and post it here?
I really don't understand that. Would you care to explain your rationale?
I think they reason they put it in there was that the Radon owners wrote letters in and asked for it. There is no judgment on the legality of the car and the CRB has no authority to declare the car compliant or non-compliant.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimh3063
To refresh everyone's memories, here is the current rule for the radon
Emphasis is mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2014 GCR
According to CRB members that I called after this rule went in, this requires that the Radon be compliant to the 2012 rules. There is no judgment of whether or not the car is legal.
It is a fact that the COA said that non-ferrous does include carbon fiber under the 2012 rules.Quote:
Statements and claims that are being made are not based on ANY facts whatsoever.
It is a fact that the Radon designer said that the Radon required nonferrous to include carbon fiber for the Radon to be legal.
I think that a lot of people here would like to know more of the facts surrounding the Radon. I have put my facts out there. The only "fact" we have regarding the Radon compliance is that the owners claim that they have documents that make the car compliant. That's not actually a fact.
To try to keep this discussion relevant to the discussion of the proposed rules and what kind of letters people should write in:
My opinion regarding these proposed rules would change 180 degrees if there was a "fact" out there that the car was legal. I will write a new letter and advocate just as loudly for most of the parts of the new rule set if someone makes that fact available.
I would still not support the part of the rules that separate the rules for FF and FC. I believe it is extremely important that FF and FC rules stay together. If the carbon panels used to be legal for FC, then they should also be legal for FF. I would also never support spec lines. Let the rules be what they are and let the best car/driver combo win.
I think the facts that would change my opinion would be the material submitted to the COA, the SOM ruling, and the COA ruling. I would want to be sure that the request was more than a picture from 50 feet away and one sentence that said, "Hey, is this legal?"
I suspect that I am not the only one who would support this rule change if there was proof out there that the Radon was legal in 2012.
If the designer of the Radon goes on this forum and points out what is not legal on the car, does anyone really need to inspect the car up close?Quote:
People are making statements that have never been up close to one, that have never sat in a CRB or any other meeting of the boards that run our club and yet seem to be an authority on Radon's.
But, one of those people whose authority Camadella appealed to went around telling people what wasn't legal on the car. I had no reason to think they weren't telling the truth. They confirmed the claims of the Radon designer.
So, would you be willing to share pictures of the questionable parts of the car with the forum?Quote:
I would ask that anyone who reads this thread dig deeper, look at the FACTS, ask someone who owns a radon to take a look at it. I think you'll find it may not be the fastest car on the grid but it is extremely well built, well thought out and a lot safer than what is currently on the grid in my opinion. Take close look yourself and see what you think.
Pictures?Quote:
Whatever happens, I strongly recommend that people come and take a close look at an actual car before they read into any statements make by people who have not.
Are you going to be at the April F2000 event at Road Atlanta?Quote:
I am willing to let anyone who cares take a look at anything they want. I am willing to show them the doc I have from the scca, but not let them take a copy. If you have done that, I think you can actually make statements that are based on facts not innuendo and hypothesis.
New chassis are coming out and that is great. The reason that all of the other new chassis are not having any of the drama is that they built compliant cars.Quote:
I would also add that times are changing newer chassis are coming out. We are not a vintage class.
It's always a good time to look at things that could make our class better. Reasonable people often hold different opinions on what would make the class better.Quote:
Maybe it's time to look at things that make our class better.
I just don't think that this proposed rule set will make our class better. I am open to listening to people who think otherwise.
*Please* don't turn this into another direct Radon is illegal pissing match or you *know* what Doug will be forced to do to this thread. this thread is about lawsuits driving rules and that shouldnt be how the process works. Keep this one open or not flat out deleted so people can get the word out and write the CRB and the BoD.
The whole Radon thing is a tired argument. Bob Wright ran his car in four majors races in Sebring and PBIR this month. Anyone could have protested, no one bothered, including the drivers who actually competed....
Again with the super secret documents....
Post them. If they are what is claimed, I will eat Wren's socks.
the ' no one protested ' argument is also a bit tired. Despite what is posted and read here. The over whelming majority of racers just want to race and don't care for anything other then racing including me. I've never protested anyone , ever. That includes the guy at the Runoffs I watched his crew put arm fulls of loose lead into the sidepods of his RT40 while waiting in line to get scaled post qually ( which the way they did it at the time meant he was top 6) or the guy who post Runoffs qually rear wing was enough over height not to get a benefit of the doubt. No tech inspector wants to toss a top 6 car ( he was inn front of me on grid after final Q ) so they let him remove his car from measuring garage and turn it around , like that would matter. They pushed the car completely out of the tent the cars were staged in after being teched so I walked out and watched as the removed the valve cores from the tires and pushed it back in with flat tires. It passed with flying colors now and no one from tech thought to ask why. I simply walked to his paddock spot after we were released and told them I knew what they did and watched them turn beat red. Better then any protest. I started 6th in my 83 rt4 him 4th in his RT41, I was by him mid turn of the 1st corner and gone after bigger fish.
Alan, Wren knows who the two crb members are. Ask him.
As much as I would like to see it, I would never hold Reid to eating Wrens socks.
Wren, Reid, Kevin, Alan, etc, I won't publish the doc I have because when I bought the car I was asked not to unless I was protested. I am a man of my word. I was never asked not to show it to anyone just not post it. That's why I won't post it. I hope you can appreciate that. If you want, go look at any car. We all have the doc for what was self protested and deemed legal. I am referring to self protest of the body panels. Anyone is welcome look at the car, and the doc you can see the names of the people who wrote it and voted on it. You can ask them about their choices. I was not in the room nor was I privy to any of the decision making process. I just was given the doc from the self protests when the car was being developed in case I was protested.
Lets look at this a different way if we may. Please post a picture and the section of the GCR on a specific part of the car that is illegal and tell us why. Please be very specific and show a picture, the gcr rule it violates and how it violates it. Specificity of what makes a radon illegal seems to be like kryptonite around here.
I will say that my car, like most formula cars is a kit. You can either assemble it yourself or pay someone else to. I choose to pay Glen Phillips to assemble mine. We were all given the parts to assemble our car to meet the GCR in 2012. My car itself is legal to those rules. I am too tall to meet the broomstick rule so a part was added to my role hoop to make me in my car meet the broomstick rule. That is the only part of the car I know for sure was not legal when I am in it. It is me in the car not the car. Fabio can sit in the first car and meet the broomstick rule. I just wanted to add that because comments have been made about the cars not meeting the broomstick rule. It is the driver in the car that has to meet it not the car itself as a shorter person could pass in ALL radons. Radon 6 and 7 have taller hoops.
I am sure I'm not telling anyone here that maybe a certain person could have spoken to some of the other people who manufacture cars with a bit more respect and may come off as arrogant. I would agree with that statement. I would say that being arrogant does not make your car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.
I'm sure a certain person could have made an attempt to come more into the fold of the class and get more involved in a positive way in the class. That fact that it didn't happen but it doesn't make the car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.
Sueing the SCCA may piss a lot of people off, but it doesn't make his car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.
I am going to quote one of the people on the crb who came and looked at my car at Sebring "he is pushing the envelope but the car is legal" per the doc he reviewed after looking at Bob W and my car at Sebring. Pushing the envelope doesn't make your car illegal by the 2012 rules for which the car was built around.
There are a lot of opinions running around this board. Most are just that. Come look at the car and review the doc. You will see the car is what I've said. The bodywork seems to be the biggest bone of contention. It was reviewed during a self protest and deemed legal once he modified it as he was told to. Again I need to keep saying this, the car has to be legal by the 2012 rules. The rules were changed in 2013 with the very specific intent to make it illegal. Hats off to a job well done. It does not meet the 2013 rules but is grandfathered in as we all know.
Again, look at the car and doc. Make your own decision. If you're not near the Northeast of South Fla where all the Radon's reside, maybe you can come to one of the pro races and take a peek. As far as input to the new rules submissions, I would ask that you remove the radon from the equation. Do the proposed mods make the cars better and safer. Do the proposed rule mods further the progression of the class. Someone felt that in 2012 changing the rules did. 20 years of the exact same rules needed modifications for some reason. I'm not really sure why that was the case but I am only one person. Just take the people and personalities out and vote on the proposed rule changes based on the merits or lack thereof.
Vote on the Radon with your wallet. The 7 cars that are already built are grandfathered in. They have been running for a few years at many SCCA events. There were two at Sebring and Moroso at the beginning of January Majors for all to see and protest. No one did. They've been to enough SCCA events if someone truly felt they could prove that it's illegal, it would have been protested by now. I'm not sure but maybe there is more doubt than conviction of the facts and that is why it's never been protested. This is just my opinion.
Now I must sign off. I have truly used up more time on this it is worthy of.
Later,
Jimmy
Jim,
In post #29 of this thread I posted a picture of a Radon that lacked the required diagonal brace to protect the driver's legs. I also posted the relevant portions of the 2012 GCR that are violated by the missing brace.
Is that picture incorrect? I know that Nathan was warned about the missing brace all the way back in 2010, but that picture is much more current than that. I hope that I am wrong about this one, do you have a picture to prove me wrong?
All of the other threads have been filled with very specific allegations against the legality of the Radon, quotes from Nathan where he points out the illegal parts of his own car, and I even did diagrams in them. Lack of specificity is not the problem. You would have to be willfully ignoring what was posted here to claim that there have not been specific allegations made. Rehashing those points will accomplish nothing except getting this thread locked. I would love nothing more than deep dive into the Radon's legality, but this is not the thread for it. If Doug says it is ok to start another thread, then we can do it. Otherwise, you and I are hijacking this thread and we should take it to PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFirlein
You are correct.
This thread is about whether or not the SCCA members want someone to be able to build a car that is not legal to any existing rules and then use their investor's deep pockets to finance a lawsuit to have the rules changed to make their car legal or if people think that constructors should have to build their cars to the existing rules.
No matter what you think, send your letters to the CRB. They don't have to be long, just a few sentences into the box on the CRB website will be enough.
www.crbscca.com
Now I have to head off to a meeting, more rules discussion when I get back.
Wren:
I think you're a bright guy who knows the rules. What I don't think is you've actually seen a car up close enough to deem anything legal or illegal. Just protest one and get it over with. Let's just put it to bed once and for all.
Jimmy