Radon photos

[nulrich]

Since the FF/FC rules change proposed in the September Fastrack is specifically targeted at our car, I thought I should post some information about the Radon Rn.10 chassis and some photos of the first few cars under construction.

We have spent a lot of time and effort to design a safe and easy to maintain car and we expect it to cost less than a new Elan/Van Diemen (or, I suspect, any other complete car). We've been able to achieve this by a combination of good design and modern manufacturing methods. We also hope it will be competitive on track.

We don't have the time or resources to completely redesign the car to meet such drastically modified rules, so if the proposed rule changes are adopted we won't be involved in SCCA Club Racing.

It is your club, so if you want the car banned, and you think that's in the best interest of FF/FC and the SCCA, then you should let the CRB know. On the other hand, if you think the Rn.10 would be a good thing for Club Racing, let the CRB know that.

The Rn.10 is a tube-frame car, as you can see from the photos. In fact, the roll cage was designed to meet 2009 FIA F3 rollover protection standards, so it is roughly six to ten times stronger than the minimum SCCA requirement.

We have designed and constructed a cockpit safety cell using 4130 steel tubes, a 16 gauge 4130 steel floor, and cockpit side protection panels. The cockpit side panels provide much more protection to the driver than a tube frame alone, and are similar to the panels required in recent FIA safety standards. The panels are made with carbon fiber (woven and unidirectional) and Innegra fiber (a very low cost fiber that has some of the characteristics of Kevlar). Both materials are banned in the proposed rules. The panels are bolted to the tube frame on centers of six inches or more in compliance with the 2010 rules, but would be illegal under the proposed new rules.

Aside from safety, there are other benefits of the panels. Because we can bolt directly through the panels, and because they provide some bracing, we eliminate many of the little tubes and brackets that are present in existing cars, and the end result is a frame assembly that is less expensive.

In the case of a bad accident, the panels can also easily be removed and replaced without requiring costly straightening and weld repairs.

A further safety benefit is that the interior of the cockpit is almost completely smooth, without any protrusions or tubes that can rub against the driver (either during normal driving or in an accident).

We've also done some nice things in other areas of the car, but I'm primarily addressing those areas made illegal by the proposed rules changes. I'd be glad to answer questions.

Regards,

Nathan Ulrich
Technical Director
Radon Sport LLC

[RobLav]

I guess I'll start with the comments. I'm sure there will be many more!

Overall, I appreciate the efforts and initiative of a designer to make a better product. Thanks for finally posting these. There had been many rumors out there concerning actually how this car is built. It may have been more prudent to post them as progress was made like many of us did with the FB builds. This is a club.

- How about some pictures of the chassis outside of the aluminum dolly? Maybe some showing the steel floor.
- I have no problem with the steel floor
- I do believe that the carbon sidepanels, although attached at 6" intervals per the rules, are illegal because the current rules are explicit as to where composite structures can go.

Here's the current rule:

[FONT=Consolas][SIZE=3]D.7.b. The area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the front roll hoop bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead shall be protected by one of the following methods to prevent the intrusion of objects into the cockpit.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Consolas][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Consolas][SIZE=3]1. Panel(s), minimum of either .060 inch heat treated aluminum [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Consolas][SIZE=3](6061-T6 or equivalent) or 18 gauge steel, attached to the outside of the main frame tubes. No other material types will be allowed for these panels.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Consolas][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Consolas][SIZE=3]2. Reinforced body - at minimum, consisting of two layers of 5 ounce, bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame. (5 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...[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Consolas][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Consolas][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT]




More comments later... again, request pics without the dolly and some of the bulkheads.

Rob

[Jim Nash]

Well, it looks like the other thread appears to have a bit of a smoke screen surrounding it. A couple of people may have been a bit coy with the facts or their intentions.

I am sure it is just a coincidence. And I thought the legality of the Reynards was at risk. Nice looking work by Radon. The process is the fun part, IMO.

Jim

[Jnovak]

Very nice Nathan, I appreciate the quality fixtures.

I suspect that the major concern of others may be the semi-structural side panels. An easy solution to this potential legality problem is to make the structural side panels the actual body panels & out of the appropriate materials.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Wren]

Since the FF/FC rules change proposed in the September Fastrack is specifically targeted at our car, I thought I should post some information about the Radon Rn.10 chassis and some photos of the first few cars under construction

We have spent a lot of time and effort to design a safe and easy to maintain car and we expect it to cost less than a new Elan/Van Diemen (or, I suspect, any other complete car). We've been able to achieve this by a combination of good design and modern manufacturing methods. We also hope it will be competitive on track.

We don't have the time or resources to completely redesign the car to meet such drastically modified rules, so if the proposed rule changes are adopted we won't be involved in SCCA Club Racing.

I haven't talked to Richard and I don't have a clue what his motivation is for the rules rewrite is. He has been beating that drum since before you ever started your car. I would hope that they would do something to keep someone else from making an expensive mistake.

I think that to portray your car as completely meeting the rules as they are currently written is stretching it. The 6" rule applies to sheet metal not to carbon parts, that is spelled out in the rules as written. The rules as written do not allow carbon reinforcement to the frame, at least as I read them. It's tough to see much in attached photos, but it looks like there might be carbon wrapped around some of the frame tubes and bonded to the outer carbon skin. That sounds like a permanent assembly of panels and becomes a monocoque.

It also looks like the suspension bracket bolts to the carbon. Is that right? Wouldn't that make the carbon panels a bracket? Brackets are disallowed from being carbon in D.9. It sucks to have to go to the FF rules, but I think it applies.

Nathan, do you believe that your car is completely legal under the 2010 GCR? Have you received homologation papers? Do you expect to?

For the record, I think it is a terrible idea to change the rules to ban a car after it has been built to the rules that existed at the time. I just don't think you have done that.

So, if your car is homologated and ruled legal through the COA or paying for a ruling ahead of time I would definitely oppose changing the rules to make your car illegal.

end result is a frame assembly that is less expensive.

so how much is a frame?

- I do believe that the carbon sidepanels, although attached at 6" intervals per the rules, are illegal because the current rules are explicit as to where composite structures can go.

I agree, but as I said above, the 6" rule is for sheetmetal parts only. It looks like the car could be legal if you replace the carbon with metal, although I think you still can't wrap the metal around a tube inside the car.

lug mount calipers?

[Rick Ross]

Does anyone know how the proposed SCCA FC rule changes compare to the latest FIA specifications for tube-frame cars such as this? It is my understanding that the primary purpose behind the new FIA specs is to improve safety. If this is correct, perhaps the SCCA rules should be moving in that direction. If the FIA has already done the research....why not take advantage?

Disclaimer -- I do not own a tube-frame car, but I would of course like to see the safest possible design standards for the FC class (given that a carbon-fiber tub is currently not an option).

[Rick Kirchner]

I don't have the current GCR to refer to, but I didn't think carbon parts were illegal - just if they were "licked by the airstream". Now if that's the case, couldn't one just throw a 1mm fiberglas skin over those panels and be legal? (as long as the side impact panels have the appropriate amount of kevlar or aluminum) Seems like on could also bond the kevlar to the aluminum and then attach to the frame......

[Wren]

I don't have the current GCR to refer to, but I didn't think carbon parts were illegal - just if they were "licked by the airstream". Now if that's the case, couldn't one just throw a 1mm fiberglas skin over those panels and be legal? (as long as the side impact panels have the appropriate amount of kevlar or aluminum) Seems like on could also bond the kevlar to the aluminum and then attach to the frame......

Carbon is prohibited from the frame and the 6" rule very clearly is only in reference to sheetmetal. That is in the current GCR that we race under.

Then, in my opinion that car uses the carbon as a bracket also, and brackets are not allowed to be carbon either.

[nulrich]

Carbon is prohibited from the frame and the 6" rule very clearly is only in reference to sheetmetal. That is in the current GCR that we race under.

Then, in my opinion that car uses the carbon as a bracket also, and brackets are not allowed to be carbon either.

I assume you are referring to section 9.1.1.B.1:

B.1. Chassis
The chassis shall be of tubular steel construction with no stress‑bearing panels except bulkhead and undertray; curvature of the undertray shall not exceed 2.54cm (1 inch). Monocoque chassis construction is prohibited. Stress bearing panels are defined as: sheet metal affixed to the frame by welding, bonding, rivets, bolts, or screws which have centers closer than 15.24cm (6 inches). Body panels cannot be utilized as stress bearing panels, except as required for 1986 construction rules. The use of composite materials using carbon and/or Kevlar reinforcement is prohibited.

I'm not sure I understand your point about the six inch rule being limited to sheet metal. Are you saying that because our cockpit protection panels are composite they aren't covered by that rule?

There is no definition of "chassis" in the GCR glossary, but our cockpit protection panels are not part of the frame of the vehicle, they are bolted to it. And, if you argue that anything structural bolted to the tube frame is part of the chassis and covered by this section, then every modern FC car is illegal.

I agree that our cockpit protection panels are "brackets," especially since that definition has been extended to cover bell housings and other bolted-on components. Section D.7.d:

Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels, may be non-ferrous, of any shape, and attached to the frame in any manner.

Our cockpit protection panels are non-ferrous and therefore legal brackets. This section would seem to imply that we could attach them "in any manner" but we were careful to abide by the six inch rule. The body panels, shift linkage, anti-roll bar adjuster, dash, steering shaft and several other components mount to the panels.

Rob refers to D.7.b covering cockpit anti-intrusion protection. We are not using these panels to meet that requirement, our side bodywork is Kevlar-reinforced. There is nothing in the rules preventing ADDITIONAL cockpit protection, at least not in the current rules (the new rules would make additional cockpit protection illegal).

And, just to be clear, these panels are covered by fiberglass bodywork, and are not "licked by the airstream."

Nathan

[RobLav]

Thanks for providing your additional explanation Nathan.

My argument against your explanation is twofold:
1) Brackets have to hold something... The bellhousing "holds" the gearbox. I assume your argument is that the sidepanels "hold" the fiberglass body. Ooops - I see they hold they hold a bunch of other stuff!
2) Your sidepanels are homogeneous. The epoxy (or other matrix material) makes it that way. Since, in my view, they are homogenous, then the panel, which includes carbon, is licked by the airstream and therefore outside the rules.

I think Jay put it best above... use the appropriate materials.

There are other ways to meet the current rules while using your 6" attachment points. For instance, fiberglass (S-glass) and Kevlar body panels on the outside with something also on the inside with stiffening members between them. Or some combination thereabouts.

It also seems that the rule change proposal is not as a result of your design. These discussions have been going on for a long time.

My personal opinion is that the FF/FC rules should shy away from semi-monocoque and remain strictly tube frame in the more traditional manner, but that FB should embrace a design like yours given the higher speeds and safety aspects. But I no longer have a dog in FB, and I'm sure I'll get flamed for making that opinion known.

[VehDyn]

So he can add some aluminum or steel side panels and leave his super long composite brackets and be legal?

Nathan, cool looking car. Great work.

[Larry]

Nathan, you've got enough chassis there that you should request a homologation certificate IMMEDIATELY! Put your paperwork in now. That way you can (hopefully) end discussions of whether it is or isn't legal...and if it isn't, perhaps you can change anything found to be non-compliant.

BTW, I'm really impressed with the tooled parts--not a scratch or tool mark anywhere! Hopefully you'll maintain the same standard for all production pieces, and that these weren't special display models.

Congratulations on your car, and I hope you are successful in getting your homologation. The class can use some new blood! Over the years, I've come to the conclusion that making a good car is the easy part of the task. Building a successful business is the hard part. Almost all of the manufacturers have gone through bankruptcy (or at least reorganization). While I'm not much of a Ralph Firman fan, I've got to admit that he is one of the very few to be a successful, long-time formula car manufacturer, and I admire him as such!

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

[nulrich]

2) Your sidepanels are homogeneous. The epoxy (or other matrix material) makes it that way. Since, in my view, they are homogenous, then the panel, which includes carbon, is licked by the airstream and therefore outside the rules.

I may not have been clear. No part of the cockpit protection panels is exposed to ("licked") by the airstream. They are completely covered by bodywork.

Nathan, you've got enough chassis there that you should request a homologation certificate IMMEDIATELY! Put your paperwork in now. That way you can (hopefully) end discussions of whether it is or isn't legal...and if it isn't, perhaps you can change anything found to be non-compliant.

The first couple of chassis will be homologated within the next few weeks, and we should have about eight homologated by the end of the year. Unfortunately, in the SCCA that doesn't really mean anything, it is just a formality to make sure you meet the safety requirements and there is no guarantee of legality.

BTW, I'm really impressed with the tooled parts--not a scratch or tool mark anywhere! Hopefully you'll maintain the same standard for all production pieces, and that these weren't special display models.

Actually, I was a bit embarrassed to show some of the photos, since many of the parts aren't painted or plated...the final production parts should be better! My intention is that every steel part be painted or plated and every aluminum part be anodized. I do have some really good suppliers and we make pretty nice parts in house as well.

Nathan

[gmac]

I can't wait to see more, the car looks great.

Gmac

[KevinFirlein]

rules clarifications, changes or what not asside, I dont see how that chassis , or for that matter the firman, passes the 1" rule between the trailing edge of the front tire and leading edge of the rear tire. Sure you can add a ' shadow plate' which I beleive is what firman has done but the GCR defines the undertray as load bearing and a shadow plate isnt load bearing. Unless I have missed something ( certainly possible) I dont see how a raised nose frame is legal in FC.

[Purple Frog]

Good point Kevin. That's why i stated that Ralph better bring a good team of lawyers to the Runons.

But, as one of Ralph's lawyers, i would say, "where did you dig up the statement about trailing edge of front tire to leading edge of rear tire" ? I can't find it in the current FC rules section.

It does talk about the area between the rollhoop bulkhead and the front bulkhead. On the Radon it looks like the rollhoop bulkhead reaches the floor way ahead of the front of the rear tires. As does the Citation.

OBTW it seems to say the floor has to be stress bearing,
The chassis shall carry a mandatory load-bearing floorpan
i don't see any mention of the undertray having to be stress bearing.

It also says:
(not counting chassis “rake”).
As a constructor i could recommend a setup a specification of say... 15 degrees.

[Wren]

I'm not sure I understand your point about the six inch rule being limited to sheet metal. Are you saying that because our cockpit protection panels are composite they aren't covered by that rule?

There is no definition of "chassis" in the GCR glossary, but our cockpit protection panels are not part of the frame of the vehicle, they are bolted to it. And, if you argue that anything structural bolted to the tube frame is part of the chassis and covered by this section, then every modern FC car is illegal.

Yes, I am saying that when the rule only talks about sheet metal, then it only applies to sheet metal. It doesn't cover how to attach carbon fiber sheets because you are not allowed to.

Chassis and frame are used interchangeably in B.1 and frame has a definition.

Frame – The minimal configuration of a car necessary to contain all
running gear and to provide support for the body. Not present on “frameless”
or “unibody” cars.

Can you take the panels off and still have the car function? Will the body stay on the car?

I agree that our cockpit protection panels are "brackets," especially since that definition has been extended to cover bell housings and other bolted-on components. Section D.7.d:

If you really thought that D.7.d applied, then you would have fastened them on closer than 6" centers since they may be "attached to the frame in any manner." If you want D.7.d to apply, then it sounds like you consider your side panels to be part of the frame then B.1 applies and carbon fiber is prohibited.

Our cockpit protection panels are non-ferrous and therefore legal brackets. This section would seem to imply that we could attach them "in any manner" but we were careful to abide by the six inch rule. The body panels, shift linkage, anti-roll bar adjuster, dash, steering shaft and several other components mount to the panels.

If the body panels attach to it, then by definition it is part of the frame and not allowed to be carbon.

Can the panels be removed from the car by taking out the fasteners or is the car a "permanent assembly of panels to which the running gear, suspension and body are attached."



You ignored my question about whether or not your car has been homologated or even submitted for homologation.

If your car has received homologation/ruled legal then I think that Richard's rules should be rejected. Banning a car that was built to the rules in place at the time is absolutely wrong.

If your car is homologated and found legal through COA and/or paid for rulings, then at a minimum your car should be grandfathered in. Passing the rules would just keep everyone else from replicating what you have done.

I don't think your car is legal under the 2010 GCR and trying to put blame on Richard's new rules is dishonest at best.

[KevinFirlein]

Mike

look at FC prep rules page 202 of august edition of GCR B.1 and B.2 would seem to cover this. You are allowed a step at dash bulkhead ( which I think the citations have) but you are still limited to 1"

also in fastrack there is a clarification based on letter 1772 (page 13 of full fastrack). Its near the end and you have to remember that while it is talking about FF it falls under that portion of the GCR that is backwards in that for FC rules you have to refer to FF. It says " requires stress bearing undertray"

[nulrich]

Chassis and frame are used interchangeably in B.1 and frame has a definition.

The word "frame" does not appear in section B.1 (or anywhere else) in the FC rules.

Can you take the panels off and still have the car function? Will the body stay on the car?

Can you take all "brackets" off any modern FC car and have the car function? Obviously not.

Can the panels be removed from the car by taking out the fasteners or is the car a "permanent assembly of panels to which the running gear, suspension and body are attached."

Yes, the panels can be removed easily from the chassis. And please quote the entire definition in the GCR: "Monocoque - a frameless construction in which the main structure of a car is composed of a permanent assembly of panels to which the running gear, suspension and body are attached." The Rn.10 does not meet this definition.

You ignored my question about whether or not your car has been homologated or even submitted for homologation.

Actually, I don't think I did. See my 9:37 am post above.

Banning a car that was built to the rules in place at the time is absolutely wrong.

On this we agree 100%!

Nathan

[Daryl DeArman]

The six inch spacing rule only serves to define what constitutes a stress bearing panel.

[Wren]

The word "frame" does not appear in section B.1 (or anywhere else) in the FC rules.

The heading of the Formula Ford Chassis rules, section D.7, are Chassis/Frame. Any FC must be built to these rules as stated in the FC and the FF rules. Are you really trying to say that the frame definition does not apply to the frame of your car? What do you base that on?

Can you take all "brackets" off any modern FC car and have the car function? Obviously not.

I never said that you could, don't twist my words. I asked that question to help better understand what is part of the frame. Brackets that are essential to containing the running gear and supporting the body are part of the frame and may be attached in any manner. That is what makes a fabricated bellhousing legal. They may not be carbon as it is banned in B.1.

You had better be able to take off all of the carbon from any FC car and still have the bodywork on the car. Otherwise the carbon would be part of the frame and that is clearly not allowed.

Yes, the panels can be removed easily from the chassis. And please quote the entire definition in the GCR: "Monocoque - a frameless construction in which the main structure of a car is composed of a permanent assembly of panels to which the running gear, suspension and body are attached." The Rn.10 does not meet this definition.

I honestly could not tell. In the chassis protection photo it looked like there was a piece of carbon that bonded to the outer panel and then wrapped around a piece of steel on the frame and bonded on the other side to the carbon panel again. There has been discussion of trying this technique for more years than I have been in the SCCA, but no one ever really thought it would be legal. I was wondering if you had tried it.

Actually, I don't think I did. See my 9:37 am post above.

So you are saying that you have submitted your homologation forms and they have been approved. The rumor mill is running rampant on this and I don't honestly know what to believe.

On this we agree 100%!

Anyone who would want to make a car illegal after it is built legally according to the rules in place at the time needs to consider how they are going to feel when people decide to outlaw their car next. With that attitude we would all still be driving 1981 Van Diemen's.

It is the quickest way to make sure that no one ever tries to build a new chassis again. It adds way too much uncertainty. I think the SCCA really hurt FB when they tried to kill/combine the class after only 2 years.

I just don't think that applies here as I don't think your car is legal under the 2010 GCR.

[TimW]

Why doesn't:

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.

apply to those panels if they are attached at only 6" distances? Is 'interior' to the inside of the tubes or to the inside of the bodywork?

I'm not losing my carbon legpanel (which the rule above specifically allows as I read it) as I've lived through the transition from aluminum to carbon/aluminum to full carbon tubs and every driver I know of that time were glad to be rid of the shards of aluminum at their hips during a crash...the impact to the carbon panels created less injury in my experience.

[nulrich]

Keith:

I'm not trying to twist your words, my apologies if it appeared that way.

If you can take headings from one part of the rules and apply them to phrases in another, then I can construct a set of rules that will make any car illegal. I can only go by the words that are printed in the 2010 GCR, and the most direct and obvious interpretation. By that standard, I believe the Rn.10 is clearly legal, and many other individuals with much more experience in this area agree.

I would be glad to argue the legality of the Rn.10 under the current rules, all the way to the Court of Appeals if it were ever protested, and accept their judgment. Unfortunately, it looks like we won't have that opportunity.

If the proposed rules pass, I am pretty certain no one will ever build a new FF/FC for SCCA racing again, so in another ten years everyone in SCCA will be driving the equivalent of a 1981 Van Diemen!

Nathan

[nulrich]

Tim:

That section does apply, and we do believe they are legal "cockpit interior panels." They are also legal "brackets."

My interpretation of "cockpit interior" means inside the bodywork (which these are), or what forms the interior of the cockpit (which these do) and I see nothing in the GCR that contradicts that.

No one questions the improved safety of our construction method, I don't think. That's not the issue.

Your carbon leg panels will be illegal under the proposed new rules.

Nathan

[TimW]

Tim:


Your carbon leg panels will be illegal under the proposed new rules.

Nathan

No I don't think so. That language is in the proposed wording. Which allows them.

"Cockpit interior panels, internal ductwork, air intakes and mirrors are not subject to this restriction"

Tim

[Wren]

Why doesn't:



apply to those panels if they are attached at only 6" distances? Is 'interior' to the inside of the tubes or to the inside of the bodywork?

I'm not losing my carbon legpanel (which the rule above specifically allows as I read it) as I've lived through the transition from aluminum to carbon/aluminum to full carbon tubs and every driver I know of that time were glad to be rid of the shards of aluminum at their hips during a crash...the impact to the carbon panels created less injury in my experience.

Those panels are specifically allowed and are very different from what I think is illegal on the Radon. I had carbon on the inside of my last FC (RF96) and on my current one (DB6). As long as that carbon is not required to support the body and is not a bracket to attach suspension/running gear, then you cannot apply the restriction in the frame/chassis section to them. They are not part of the frame.

When things support bodywork or suspension, they are part of the frame. That is pretty clear in the 2010 GCR.

[nulrich]

Just to be clear, there is no mention (or prohibition against) carbon fiber or composites in section D.7 of the FF construction rules, which is titled "Chassis/Frame."

There is a specific allowance for carbon cockpit interior panels in section D.8 entitled "Bodywork." There is no definition of nor limitation on what functions the cockpit interior panels can perform.

Section D.9 does mention carbon fiber but does not apply to FC.

I believe the proposed new rules disallow your leg panels because of the prohibition in the new "General Restrictions" section, but that is one of the many contradictions in the proposal.

Nathan

[TimW]

I believe the proposed new rules disallow your leg panels because of the prohibition in the new "General Restrictions" section, but that is one of the many contradictions in the proposal.

Nathan

Its not a leap that when the general restrictions say:

The use of carbon fiber and/or Kevlar reinforcement, titanium, ceramic, high strength composites and similar materials is prohibited, unless specifically permitted.

and then another section says:

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

which is clear they are not subject to the carbon fiber restriction of the previous sentence thus are specifically permitted negating the general restrictions.

I really don't see another other interpretations saying they're illegal, but then I'm more familiar with formal languages than natural languages (if only the rules could we written in Java...)

Tim

[nulrich]

When things support bodywork or suspension, they are part of the frame. That is pretty clear in the 2010 GCR.

Not to beat a dead horse (too late), but do you really think every component that supports bodywork and/or suspension is "part of the frame" and subject to the limitations in B.1. (titled "Chassis")?

If that is true, every modern FC car is illegal.

Nathan

[Wren]

Keith:

I'm not trying to twist your words, my apologies if it appeared that way.

If you can take headings from one part of the rules and apply them to phrases in another, then I can construct a set of rules that will make any car illegal. I can only go by the words that are printed in the 2010 GCR, and the most direct and obvious interpretation.

I am using that interpretation also. The FC rules say:

"All newly constructed cars shall meet the 1986 construction rules for Formula Ford cars as revised January 1, 2010, except as allowed in these Formula Continental preparation rules."

The FF rules say:

"Formula Ford 1986 construction requirements as of January 1, 1986
as revised January 1, 2010. All new Formula Ford cars are to
be built to these specifications covered in D.6 and D.7. (Also
required for Formula Continental.)"

After reading those sections and really trying to understand what they mean, I think they mean that the FF chassis/frame rules apply to FC.

The words frame and chassis are used interchangeably in both FC and FF rules. It sounds like you are saying that your frame does not have to meet the GCR definition of a "frame." I have got to be misunderstanding you.

I would be glad to argue the legality of the Rn.10 under the current rules, all the way to the Court of Appeals if it were ever protested, and accept their judgment.

So, tell me how your "cockpit interior panels" are not a part of the frame. You have already admitted that they are required to support the bodywork and the suspension.

Just to be clear, there is no mention (or prohibition against) carbon fiber or composites in section D.7 of the FF construction rules, which is titled "Chassis/Frame."

There is a specific prohibition against carbon in the FC chassis rules (B.1).

There is a specific allowance for carbon cockpit interior panels in section D.8 entitled "Bodywork." There is no definition of nor limitation on what functions the cockpit interior panels can perform.

Agreed. I have a carbon panel to mount my dash.

But, your panels meet the definition to be part of the frame since they are essential to holding up the suspension and the bodywork. They cannot be interior to something they are a part of. I do not believe they are cockpit interior panels. They are a part of the frame which is specifically not allowed to be Carbon in section B.1.

I believe the proposed new rules disallow your leg panels because of the prohibition in the new "General Restrictions" section, but that is one of the many contradictions in the proposal.

I haven't paid a lot of attention to the new rules, but it looks like you might be right. IMO, that should be corrected to allow interior safety panels that do not meet the frame definition.

[Wren]

Not to beat a dead horse (too late), but do you really think every component that supports bodywork and/or suspension is "part of the frame" and subject to the limitations in B.1. (titled "Chassis")?

If that is true, every modern FC car is illegal.

Nathan

How?

[HazelNut]

I'd like to hear the rationale behind banning carbon fiber, in wings, noses, diffusers, sidepods, bodywork, intrusion panels, etc.

Maybe a ban made sens in 1986 when CF was way more expensive and hard to get, but it's pretty damn common material these days.

And I don't want to hear the old "carbon shards on the track cause tire failures" excuse. Metals bits and fiberglass shards will take a tire down just as easily, as will metal endplates on wings (that are still attached to cars!)

[Camadella]

<snip>

It also seems that the rule change proposal is not as a result of your design. These discussions have been going on for a long time.

Let's quit beating around the bush and call these rules proposals exactly what they are.

These new proposals are a direct result of us having built the Radon chassis, and were written by people with a financial stake in the competition in an effort to make the Radon illegal for competition in the SCCA, so as to protect their financial interest in their existing products. It's not even a covert effort to do so - instead it's rather obvious and overt effort to prevent new design cars from entering into the class. It's like asking McClaren if they think that a new and perhaps better (although we don't know for sure) car should be allowed into F1.

On the weekend of July 4th, Nathan had a Radon chassis in the back of my truck when he stopped to have dinner at the Seneca Lodge, near Watkins Glen. During the time that he was inside, Jon Baytos climbed into the back of my truck and took several photos of the Radon chassis. It is on these photos that the new rules proposals are based.

An excerpt from a letter written by Dave Gomberg (Formula Car advisory committee chair) to RadonSport (and other FC car manufacturers) reads as follows:

"This note is being sent to all known FF/FC chassis constructors. Its purpose is to call your attention to a proposed re-write of the FF/FC chassis construction rules. Although we have asked the membership for their comments on this re-write, the CRB is particularly interested in the reactions and comments of those who create these chassis.

The CRB received the original request in late July. It was considered and amended by the Formula and Sports Racing advisory committee and was then sent to the CRB with a recommendation to seek member input. This was agreed to by the CRB at its August meeting and has now been published."

Now, since the photos were taken on July 4th, and the proposal came out in late July (they needed some time to write them), I don't think that there is any question that these rules proposals are a direct and overt reaction to the Radon chassis.

Cheers,

Chris C.

[RobLav]

Chris,

I did not intend to beat around the bush. It is fact that many discussions and re-write attempts have happened over the past 10 years. And I had heard of Jon's (what I consider) despicable act some time ago. The timing sure looks like the Radon precipitated this latest series of rules adjustment actions, but the CRB was approached to try again a couple months before the pictures came out.

It is (only) my opinion here - that you are better off going through this now rather than getting protested later after more cars had been built.

[Wren]

These new proposals are a direct result of us having built the Radon chassis, and were written by people with a financial stake in the competition in an effort to make the Radon illegal for competition in the SCCA, so as to protect their financial interest in their existing products. It's not even a covert effort to do so - instead it's rather obvious and overt effort to prevent new design cars from entering into the class. It's like asking McClaren if they think that a new and perhaps better (although we don't know for sure) car should be allowed into F1.

Ridiculous. I've been accused of being a Citation shill already and that somehow this is an elaborate scheme to sell more Citations. I own a DB-6. My paycheck comes every two weeks from DFAS/US ARMY.

I did make some parts for Brandon's Citation, but Brandon and I have been friends for 10 years and Brandon has been driving a Citation for one year. Because of being around it, I do know what the financial model is. They lose money on every car and have no interest in making it up in volume. This is not a money making venture, it is some people trying to build some cars and go racing. I don't even know that Richard has much stake in the cars. I really think that the only part of Brandon's car that came from Richard is the diff. Brandon paid full price for it and used it because it is the best diff out there for an FB. I would be willing to bet that Richard sells a lot more $ to VD guys than to the handful of Citation guys.

Whether there is a rules proposal passed or not, that car is not 2010 GCR legal as shown in those pictures and described by Nathan unless you accept that the frame definition doesn't apply to FC cars because their heading is only labelled "chassis." Maybe we should all reread GCR 1.2.3.

edit- with a car that I got two cars ago, I received a folder of printouts from F2000.com dating back to who knows when. Richard has been wanting rules changes since way before Radon came along and I think you can see that in the archives of this website also.

[Ron B.]

[quote=Purple Frog;266324]
But, as one of Ralph's lawyers, i would say, "where did you dig up the statement about trailing edge of front tire to leading edge of rear tire" ? I can't find it in the current FC rules section.

[FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]B.2. Bodywork and Airfoils[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]See Table 4. (Airfoils are a requirement for this class.) [/FONT][FONT=Univers]The use of composite materials using carbon reinforcement is prohibited [/FONT][FONT=Univers]except as permitted herein. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]The use of “ground effects” is limited. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Deviation of the undertray may [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]not exceed 2.54cm (1”) in the area between the rearmost point of the [/FONT][FONT=Univers]front tire to the frontmost point of the rear tire. Diffuser undertrays are [/FONT][FONT=Univers]permitted.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[nulrich]

I certainly understand why people are upset. I'm pretty upset myself, having spent 80 hours a week for the last thirteen months designing a car that is about to be banned! However, I don't think it's productive to get personal or worry about how the latest rules change proposal came about.

I do think that SCCA as a member-driven organization is at the cusp of an important decision.

The FF chassis rules had a major revision for 2010, one that involved many hours of volunteer effort (including a lot of input from Richard Pare, I'm told). I participated in the process last fall, and pointed out a couple of errors that were corrected in the final version. There were some last minute changes, but they were communicated early and clearly to everyone involved. The result is very well written, consistent, and easily interpreted. As a constructor, I was assured that there were no plans for another revision for some time, and we built a car that is clearly legal within the printed 2010 rules.

If this new rules change proposal is approved, then there will be no new FF/FC car designs in SCCA for some time, perhaps forever (no constructor would take the risk of a radical rules change making their cars illegal at the last minute).

That may make some existing racers happy, but eventually it will mean the end of the FF/FC classes.

It's your club, and it's your decision. There will be many Radon cars racing next year, and we're going to be building cars as fast as we can to meet existing orders. The only question is whether there will be any in club racing. I hope so.

Nathan

[Wren]

we built a car that is clearly legal within the printed 2010 rules.

You still haven't explained how your carboned framed car is legal. Repeating that it is legal over and over will not make it legal.

If it supports bodywork and suspension, it is part of the frame. That is clearly spelled out in the technical glossary.

The frame is not allowed to be carbon. That is clearly spelled out in the FC rules.

Your car meets neither the letter nor the spirit of the rules. You are using the proposed rules rewrite as a strawman.

[Purple Frog]

Ron B.,

I see what you are pointing at with the 1" rule. Thank you for setting me (dumbass) straight. It does point out the supidity of reading just the FC rules, one must be constantly flipping back to the FF section to get the complete answer. Really a stupid way to write rules in 2010 (my opinion). Why can't all the FC rules just be in the FC section. Duh.

In Richard's proposal it's being deleted, but then added with different wording a bit below the deletion. I got lost in all the cross-outs and red ink.

So, Ralph needs even better lawyers than me at the Runons.

[Rick Kirchner]

Otherwise known as "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

A little revisionist history Wren. The predecessor of your car, the DB-1, was largely viewed by the rank and file in 1984 as illegally as you view the Radon.

Difference is now we have Fastrack and Apexspeed, and a little more cleansing sunlight on club practices. In 1984 it was more smoky back room deals and thus the DB-1 exists as it does today.

So at least you are getting an opportunity that a LOT more competitors didn't get in 1984, so why the vitriol?

Everybody on here will get to sea-lawyer this to death, but the only thing that matters is the comp board's decisions.

Frankly, the SCCA using homologation as just safety related is a total cop-out. I realize that people can change stuff after submittal, but owners of tube cars can sweat out tubes, aluminum tub cars get gussets and interior panels removed to make room etc. The homologation process should approve the FRAME and all components submitted with the frame for safety AND legality, since they go hand-in-hand.