Radon photos

[Camadella]

Your car meets neither the letter nor the spirit of the rules.

If that's the case, then I have a simple solution to the whole problem. Just leave the rules as they are, and were when we built the car. If the car doesn't meet the rules, then we'll find that out through the normal protest and appeals process.

My personal opinion is that someone must think that our car DOES meet the rules - otherwise they wouldn't want to be changing the rules!

[allof6]

I believe that the spirit was to build a better mouse trap and the intent is to win races!

I don't know what every one is afraid of! What they have done is nothing that can't be updated to any FC out there, but I forgot VD has never had to update cars or build a new one.

Looks great Nathan!

[mark defer]

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

nathan,
if you're implying that the f2000 series will be running these cars even if they are judged to be illegal in club racing, the series better be prepared to take a hit in entries. one of the main tenets of the series is the crossover between club and pro rules. i personally would probably go back to doing nationals.

mark d

[Wren]

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.

Honestly, I don't intend for their to be a lot of vitriol. It is just that among the constant claiming that the car is legal to the 2010 GCR, I don't want anyone to lose sight of the fact that it is not 2010 GCR legal. The new rules/revision is being scapegoated to save face.

Honestly, if it wasn't for the pictures in the first post I would never have replied because I would have thought that it was just an elaborate troll.

Their argument seems to consist of these points:

- even though something supports bodywork and suspension, that doesn't make it part of the frame, never mind that is the exact definition of a frame in the GCR.
- even if the carbon panels are part of the frame, we don't have to follow the technical definition of a frame because section B.1 of the FC rules is title "Chassis" and the word frame is used in that section so obviously FC cars do not have a frame, they have a chassis. Maybe we also need to debate what someone means by the word "is?"
- somehow the frame can also serve as a cockpit interior panel by being interior to itself.

The chewbaca defense would make more sense to defend their car than what they are using.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

I don't know what every one is afraid of! What they have done is nothing that can't be updated to any FC out there, but I forgot VD has never had to update cars or build a new one.

I will agree that it is nothing exceptional, it is just a question of whether or not the words written in the GCR are worth the paper they are printed on. My car would go a lot faster with a 170hp engine in the back and that is definitely nothing that cannot be updated to every other car.

[BrianT1]

It's hard to tell by looking at the photos but is the problem with the legality of the Radon just the carbon panels or does it have a raised floor also? Not having seen the new RFR car does that have a raised floor as well and is that the issue with compliance of the rules??

Seems as though many people have seen both cars and it amazes me that the build process would get this far and then we talk about legality. Would it not be best for the builder to have SCCA do what the FIA do and have them come out to check the legality of a part or build as it is going on.


Brian

[nulrich]

nathan,
if you're implying that the f2000 series will be running these cars even if they are judged to be illegal in club racing, the series better be prepared to take a hit in entries. one of the main tenets of the series is the crossover between club and pro rules. i personally would probably go back to doing nationals.

mark d

Hi Mark:

If the new rules proposal is approved, I do not know what the F2000 pro series will do. I suggest you ask them, although I suspect they won't make a decision until it actually happens.

SCCA is not the only place to race F2000 cars.

Nathan

[nulrich]

It's hard to tell by looking at the photos but is the problem with the legality of the Radon just the carbon panels or does it have a raised floor also? Not having seen the new RFR car does that have a raised floor as well and is that the issue with compliance of the rules??

Brian

Hi Brian:

I cannot speak for the Firman car, I haven't seen their floor.

The Rn.10 has a floor that is fully compliant with the 2010 GCR. That's not just my opinion, but also the opinion of everyone that has seen it up close (including members of the CRB). It would not be legal under the proposed new rules, but that's kind of academic, isn't it?

Nathan

[mark defer]

as everyone knows, a few years ago there was a series where the guy running the series had close ties with one of the teams. this team also happened to win a bunch of the races. there was always an undercurrent of inpropriety with the situation.
with the current series bob and al the series owners have been able to actually compete themselves without raising any eyebrows. hats off to them.
however IF this car is deemed to not be legal in club racing, but they allow it into their series after they themselves have purchased these cars.............

mark d

[nulrich]

Mark:

Please be careful in your comparisons!

Radon Sport has no formal affiliation with or financial interest in the F2000 pro series. I happen to think it is (by far) the best open wheel racing in this country, and I'd like to see Radon cars racing there.

However, I'm just the designer of the car. I don't own any cars, nor can I control what the purchasers of these cars decide to do with them.

I am sure that Al, Mike and Bob will do what's best for the series, not what's best for them personally, and I suspect that will also be what's best for the health of F2000 racing. I sincerely doubt they would do anything to make your car illegal or uncompetitive.

Nathan

[Bill Valet]

It seems to me that the current rules are poorly written, or written without forseeing this type of chassis being constructed. I've quoted B.1 below:

"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."

This explicitly states that a stress bearing panel is sheet metal affixed to the frame by welding, bonding, rivets, bolts, or screws which have centers closer than 6 inches. Under 1.2.3 Interpreting and Applying the GCR "Words such as 'shall' or 'shall not', 'will' or 'will not', 'can not', 'may not', 'are' or 'must' are mandatory; and words such as 'may' and 'should' are permissive."

Technically, by the clauses stated above, I can go and bolt (closer than 6 inch centers) or bond a fiberglass panel to my car and it won't be considered a stress bearing panel under the current rules. It does say that I cannot use carbon, or kevlar reinforcement, those those are ruled out, but any other composite is surely useable as it is not stated as being forbidden.

Is this correct, or is this one of those, "if it doesn't say you can, you can't" type of thing?

Just curious, as any help with rules interpretation will save major headaches down the line for anyone, including myself. Not to say that I will attempt anything like this! The further away from controversy the better for me.

-Bill Valet

[Wren]

This explicitly states that a stress bearing panel is sheet metal affixed to the frame by welding, bonding, rivets, bolts, or screws which have centers closer than 6 inches. Under 1.2.3 Interpreting and Applying the GCR "Words such as 'shall' or 'shall not', 'will' or 'will not', 'can not', 'may not', 'are' or 'must' are mandatory; and words such as 'may' and 'should' are permissive."

Technically, by the clauses stated above, I can go and bolt (closer than 6 inch centers) or bond a fiberglass panel to my car and it won't be considered a stress bearing panel under the current rules. It does say that I cannot use carbon, or kevlar reinforcement, those those are ruled out, but any other composite is surely useable as it is not stated as being forbidden.

Is this correct, or is this one of those, "if it doesn't say you can, you can't" type of thing?

I would class it as you can't because it doesn't say that you can.

The language in the FC rules is:


[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]

Formula Continental is a Restricted class. Therefore, any allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T.

[/FONT][FONT=Univers]If you can find language to allow that fiberglass panel, then you can do it. Otherwise you have no right to do it. No exceptions.[/FONT]

[/FONT]

[nulrich]

Bill:

Good point. You have to look at the FF construction rules as well, though. At the end of section D.7 it says:

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

That clearly prevents you from using anything other than aluminum or sheet steel as "stress bearing panels." That's why our cockpit protection panels are attached on centers of six inches or greater, and easily removable. They are clearly not part of the chassis nor can they be considered stress bearing panels.

Nathan

[Bill Valet]

Certainly helps clarify things, thanks guys.

-Bill Valet

[Wren]

That's why our cockpit protection panels are attached on centers of six inches or greater, and easily removable. They are clearly not part of the chassis nor can they be considered stress bearing panels.

Nathan

They are part of the chassis, which is the same thing as the frame. The reason that they are part of the chassis is that they meet the definition in the technical glossary as being part of the frame.

Here is the SCCA definition of frame that we all have to live by:

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.

If your car cannot support the body without those panels, then they are part of the frame and they are not cockpit interior panels. Given the fact that the wheels will fall off of your car without those panels, I don't see how you can expect anyone to consider them to be cockpit interior panels. They are a part of the frame by definition in the GCR. Your only defense has been to repeat over and over that they are not part of the frame without providing a bit of argument to prove it. My guess is that you hope that if people read that often enough, they will begin to believe it.

There is no section of the GCR that allows you to have those panels in a structural application, therefore you may not have them. If you think you are allowed to have them, please point me to the langauge that allows them.

Yesterday you were happy to point out that they are structural panels, has anything changed?

[dc]

That clearly prevents you from using anything other than aluminum or sheet steel as "stress bearing panels." That's why our cockpit protection panels are attached on centers of six inches or greater, and easily removable. They are clearly not part of the chassis nor can they be considered stress bearing panels.

Nathan, I can't tell completely from the photos, but are your panels bolted directly into the center of the frame rails or am I not seeing things correctly?

[Matt King]

Bill:

Good point. You have to look at the FF construction rules as well, though. At the end of section D.7 it says:

That clearly prevents you from using anything other than aluminum or sheet steel as "stress bearing panels." That's why our cockpit protection panels are attached on centers of six inches or greater, and easily removable. They are clearly not part of the chassis nor can they be considered stress bearing panels.

Nathan

It seems like you are hanging your interpretation of the legality of the panels solely on the 6-inch spacing restriction. Is that correct?

[nulrich]

Doug:

Does this help? They are bolted through bungs welded into the frame tubes. The fasteners are also a custom design that spreads the load into the carbon properly. The bungs are designed such that they do not compromise the strength of the tube, and we considered their presence (but not the carbon panels) when we did the FEA frame analysis required for homologation.

Nathan

[Daryl DeArman]

I would class it as you can't because it doesn't say that you can.

I disagree. If we are applying that logic to that clause, why list materials that can't be used? There is no need. If they don't specifically allow it, it isn't allowed.

Since they list the prohibitted materials, exclussion from that list equals an acceptable material.

[nulrich]

It seems like you are hanging your interpretation of the legality of the panels solely on the 6-inch spacing restriction. Is that correct?

Hi Matt:

No. They are probably legal even if they were spaced at centers closer than six inches, but we decided it was prudent to respect that guidance, which effectively prevents monocoque type load paths.

The panels are specifically allowed in section D.8.f:

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

And also meet the definition of bracket in 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.

Nathan

[dc]

But by making those composite panels stressed members of the chassis/frame by bolting them through the frame rails, you are making the car a monocoque, are you not? Six inches or not, it doesn't look like an interior panel to me, but a composite stressed frame member.

Am I wrong?

[nulrich]

Yes, you are, at least according to 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 has a frame, in fact a very substantial tube frame that meets the SCCA requirements on its own. Also, the panels are not permanent nor do they comprise the main structure of the car.

Nathan

[Wren]

I disagree. If we are applying that logic to that clause, why list materials that can't be used? There is no need. If they don't specifically allow it, it isn't allowed.

Since they list the prohibitted materials, exclussion from that list equals an acceptable material.

Interesting point. It doesn't apply here as Nathan has constructed a frame from materials that are specifically on the banned list. Therefore his car is illegal as shown in these photos.

Hi Matt:

No. They are probably legal even if they were spaced at centers closer than six inches, but we decided it was prudent to respect that guidance, which effectively prevents monocoque type load paths.

The panels are specifically allowed in section D.8.f:

The panels constitute the frame of the car, they cannot be interior to themselves.

And also meet the definition of bracket in D.7.d:

Nathan, in saying this you have admitted that they are a part of the frame. D.7 are the rules that have to do with the frame and your are right that D.7.d absolutely applies here. Unfortunately for you, the rule that bans carbon fiber in the frame also applies here. Your panels are part of the frame, they may not be carbon fiber, so your panels are illegal.

Also, the panels are not permanent nor do they comprise the main structure of the car.

Nathan, without the panels there is no way to attach the suspension or body to your car and you want us to believe that they do not comprise the main structure of the car. I have always considered being able to attach suspension a fairly important part of car construction.

[Motorsport Services]

Larry Oliver is spot on (unless you want to sell this as a track day car)

Carbon fiber is the LAST material one would want to use for driver protection as it provides no side impact protection, potentailly shards on impact, and simply adds cost to what (you claim) would be an inexpensive piece to replace in the event of a shunt.

If these "side protection panels" weren't added as a necessity (ie: chassis flex), then the solution should be relatively simple...

[nulrich]

Larry Oliver is spot on (unless you want to sell this as a track day car)

Unfortunately, homologation provides no guarantee of legality in the SCCA, nor does it protect against rules changes.

Carbon fiber is the LAST material one would want to use for driver protection as it provides no side impact protection, potentailly shards on impact, and simply adds cost to what (you claim) would be an inexpensive piece to replace in the event of a shunt.

I'm sorry, that's just not true. If you don't believe me, then ask any F1, F3, or Indycar designer why their cockpit survival cells use carbon fiber as the main structural component. Yes, they add additional materials, like Kevlar or Zylon, for their extreme tensile strength, but those materials are awful in compression.

We used a fiber called Innegra to provide penetration resistance. It's much lower cost than Kevlar or Zylon and has many of the same properties. You can see some patches of it on the outside of the panels (the whitish areas) but it's also used as core.

Also, have you priced carbon fiber fabric recently? The bulk of the panel is made from a very heavy cloth that is also quite inexpensive. With the RTM manufacturing process, the panels are very low cost.

If these "side protection panels" weren't added as a necessity (ie: chassis flex), then the solution should be relatively simple...

I have never claimed these panels serve no structural purpose, in fact I have acknowledged it over and over again. That's one of the reasons they reduce the overall cost of the frame, since they eliminate many little tubes, gussets, and brackets.

Unlike FB, the FC rules allow carbon fiber interior panels and structural brackets. Bolted-together bell housings are a good example of a "bracket," without which the car can't even roll, let alone drive, yet are clearly in violation of the prohibition against stressed panels for chassis construction.

Nathan

[KVS84]

Wren why are you so passionate about proving the Radon illegal? Why not be constructive about moving the class forward and away from vintage eligibility? What the heck is so wrong about a safer car? Did you see the side impact hit Al Sr took at Watkins Glen a few years ago? Cuz I did and am glad he escaped serious injury but it was more luck than safety from the 10 year old VD design. If you saw the chassis it folded like a lawn chair.

-Keegan

[Wren]

I have never claimed these panels serve no structural purpose, in fact I have acknowledged it over and over again. That's one of the reasons they reduce the overall cost of the frame, since they eliminate many little tubes, gussets, and brackets.

whether they reduce the cost or not does not matter. They are part of the frame and may not be carbon.

Unlike FB, the FC rules allow carbon fiber interior panels and structural brackets. Bolted-together bell housings are a good example of a "bracket," without which the car can't even roll, let alone drive, yet are clearly in violation of the prohibition against stressed panels for chassis construction.

Nathan

Fabricated bell housings are legal because while they are part of the frame, they are covered under D.7.d as a bracket and may be fastened in any manner.

If someone were to produce a carbon fiber bellhousing, it would fall into the exact same problem that your side panels have because it would be part of the frame and no part of the frame may be carbon fiber.

[Wren]

Wren why are you so passionate about proving the Radon illegal? Why not be constructive about moving the class forward and away from vintage eligibility? What the heck is so wrong about a safer car? Did you see the side impact hit Al Sr took at Watkins Glen a few years ago? Cuz I did and am glad he escaped serious injury but it was more luck than safety from the 10 year old VD design. If you saw the chassis it folded like a lawn chair.

-Keegan

I think everyone should have to follow the same set of rules. The GCR proves their car illegal, not me.

I do not want to see anybody hurt and I don't think that anyone else does either. But, appealing ot people's emotions and saying that wanting a level playing field means that I don't want people to be safe is ridiculous. Saying, "it's cheaper" or "it's safer" is not a argument for why the rules should not apply to this car.

I don't have a problem with moving the class forward. If people want chassis like this legal for competition then they should follow the process in place to have the rules changed.

All I really want is for someone to offer a reasonable explanation for how something that supports suspension and bodywork isn't a frame.

[DaveW]

But by making those composite panels stressed members of the chassis/frame by bolting them through the frame rails, you are making the car a monocoque, are you not? Six inches or not, it doesn't look like an interior panel to me, but a composite stressed frame member.

Am I wrong?

Doug, you have reached basically the same conclusion I have. However, that is not what we really have to worry about. What we have to worry about is further rules "creep." Once we allow carbon-fiber panels which add stiffness to the chassis bolted on at the prescribed 6" minimum between fasteners, it does not take much imagination to forecast the next step in this rules creep.

The next step would be a full CF "body" or "safety enclosure" that wraps completely over the top of the now vestigial chassis, and provides most of the chassis rigidity and strength. At that point it would probably be more economical to do a real CF chassis as in FA, etc., and we know where that would lead in terms of initial and maintenance cost.

So, IMO, this type of rule change is absolutely necessary.

[nulrich]

Fabricated bell housings are legal because while they are part of the frame, they are covered under D.7.d as a bracket and may be fastened in any manner.

If someone were to produce a carbon fiber bellhousing, it would fall into the exact same problem that your side panels have because it would be part of the frame and no part of the frame may be carbon fiber.

First question: If I understand your argument correctly, your contention is that brackets, or any other part of the car that supports bodywork or suspension, is part of the "frame" of the car, and therefore subject to section "B.1 - Chassis" of the GCR? Yes or no, please.

Second question: If the cockpit protection panels were made out of Zylon or Dyneema (which are not carbon fiber or Kevlar) they would be legal?

Nathan

[nulrich]

Doug, you have reached basically the same conclusion I have. However, that is not what we really have to worry about. What we have to worry about is further rules "creep." Once we allow carbon-fiber panels which add stiffness to the chassis bolted on at the prescribed 6" minimum between fasteners, it does not take much imagination to forecast the next step in this rules creep.

Hi Dave:

I don't want to quibble, but there is no "rules creep" if the rules stay the same!

The next step would be a full CF "body" or "safety enclosure" that wraps completely over the top of the now vestigial chassis, and provides most of the chassis rigidity and strength. At that point it would probably be more economical to do a real CF chassis as in FA, etc., and we know where that would lead in terms of initial and maintenance cost.

This would not be possible under the current rules. As it stands now, and as I would suggest it remain, the tube frame chassis of the car has to meet all the requirements spelled out in the GCR, both for rollover protection and driver protection. I would go further and suggest we update the rollover specs to modern FIA standards, as we have done, but it's not necessary.

It has to meet those requirements WITHOUT any additional cockpit protection panels, so a substantial (not vestigial) tube frame will always be necessary.

Adding a full carbon monocoque around the required tube frame provides no benefit and just adds weight. Our car is no stiffer than, say, a Citation, even with the cockpit panels. In fact, the biggest improvement in torsional rigidity in our design comes from the tube frame around the engine, where much of the "softness" of many current FC cars lies.

If someone wanted to build such a car, more power to them. It wouldn't be any faster, and it would be heavier.

And, by the way, even if we hadn't added all the weight saved from the carbon panels back into additional cockpit protection, the magnitude is very small, on the order of ten pounds. I've heard people claim that our chassis construction is worth two seconds a lap, which I know you'll agree is just ridiculous!

Nathan

[Motorsport Services]

Zylon and Dyneema would technically be legal for driver protection as one is a synthetic polymer and the other a UHMwPE and fall under the same category as Kevlar for providing impact resistance. They might not, however, do much for curing chassis flex.

[Matt M.]

I have 3 1/2 comments

1) I renwed my SCCA membership - just so I can comment on this thing... I hate you Radon haters... Your all mean and hateful.
2) Can we please refer to it as Heterologation - Homologation should be left to the French
3) Seems to me there are a few people with VD; that have carbon noses... Thats outside the frame - bolts to the frame - some would say adds to front end rigidity... I'm calling it a bracket from now on. Who's with me

Thats all for now...

Oh wait - what about Zytel..... Derlin with kevlar....Minlon.... Does it matter - there are thousands of things not listed in the GCR - the stuff didn't exists when it was written........

The pro series has the highest amount of open-wheel entries in the US. Several manufacturers have looked at it - a few have undertaken a chassis... So now let's send the right message to them - NOT what is happening.... No one even knows if this thing is a game changer...(unlike the Elan intake)

[Daryl DeArman]

Oh wait - what about Zytel..... Derlin with kevlar....Minlon.... Does it matter - there are thousands of things not listed in the GCR - the stuff didn't exists when it was written........

Which is why you don't list the banned materials, ONLY the approved, or the words "material is unrestricted". Then you can fall back on "if it doesn't say you can, you can't" language.

This isn't rules creep. This is somebody taking advantage of the letter of the rule to their benifit. That is an integral part of this game. They did that part of their job better than the rest of us. One risk in doing that job too well is the rule gets changed by the folks who don't like the result.

[DaveW]

Hi Dave:

I don't want to quibble, but there is no "rules creep" if the rules stay the same!
...It has to meet those requirements WITHOUT any additional cockpit protection panels, so a substantial (not vestigial) tube frame will always be necessary....

Nathan

Nathan,

I have always respected your views and obvious intelligence. However, knowing how things work in SCCA, we are always going to have a difference of opinion on this subject. Let's leave it at that.

[nulrich]

Dave:

I have the same respect for you. I don't think a difference of opinion (on rules, politics, or religion) ever needs to lead to hostility or lack of courtesy, and I've tried to apply that philosophy here.

To extend that, anyone that would like to discuss any aspect of this issue on the telephone, please send me a private message and I'll give you my number.

Regards,

Nathan

[lancer360]

This thread is a great read and I love reading all the different interpretations of the rules. Short of a spec class like FE, you are never going to get rid of people reading the rules to their advantage and trying to build a better mousetrap. Some may say it is outright illegal, others may say it is just a creative interpretation. It is said that Colin Chapman would disappear for several days every time the new F1 rules came out so he could read through every rule and try to find something he could take advantage of. I look forward to seeing the Radon at the track. If it truly is a safer car with a comparable or lower costs, I think it will be a good thing.

[Wren]

First question: If I understand your argument correctly, your contention is that brackets, or any other part of the car that supports bodywork or suspension, is part of the "frame" of the car, and therefore subject to section "B.1 - Chassis" of the GCR? Yes or no, please.

Yes. Anything required to support running gear or bodywork is frame.

Second question: If the cockpit protection panels were made out of Zylon or Dyneema (which are not carbon fiber or Kevlar) they would be legal?

Nathan

The more I think about it, I think the answer would be no as you still risk running afoul of the monocoque rule. I am also leaning towards no longer considering your panels a bracket.

[nulrich]

Yes. Anything required to support running gear or bodywork is frame.

Are you sure? Here is section B.1 of the FC rules, which takes precedence over anything in the FF rules:

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.

If your definition is correct, and section B.1 applies to "anything required to support running gear or bodywork" then any bolted-together bell housing (like those on Pipers and the new Citations) is illegal, since they have stress-bearing panels (fasteners closer than six inches) and are not part of the bulkhead or undertray.

If you look carefully at any FC car, you can find "brackets" that are part of the frame under your definition that would be illegal if B.1 applied.

Fortunately, the Court of Appeals and most of us disagree with your interpretation, or we wouldn't have any legal FC cars.

(Regarding Zylon or Dyneema instead of carbon/Innegra panels) The more I think about it, I think the answer would be no as you still risk running afoul of the monocoque rule. I am also leaning towards no longer considering your panels a bracket.

Again, the GCR is very clear. Here is the definition of monocoque:

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.

Since the Rn.10 clearly has a frame (by any definition) and the panels are not permanent (they are easily removed) then it is not a monocoque.

If you want to argue that you can break the car into pieces and make each particular part pass the monocoque rule, then all FC cars are illegal, since there are many individual components that could be considered of "monocoque" construction (gearbox cases, cast bell housings, etc).

Nathan

[starkejt]

I was going to suggest the Wren and Nathan decide this MMA-style in the Octagon, but they would probably just argue about whether the pads on the sides of the cage made it a monocoque or not.

[nulrich]

Are you kidding? Didn't he just use competitive wrestling as an example with which he's familiar? I'd probably get pinned in less time than it takes to lap Lime Rock (in a Radon)!

How about basketball? Or tennis?

Nathan