Chris C,
Maybe I missed it but what exactly is your position with Radon? I though you were working with the F2000 Nat Cham series as a Pr guy or a IT guy.
M. Foschi
Chris C,
Maybe I missed it but what exactly is your position with Radon? I though you were working with the F2000 Nat Cham series as a Pr guy or a IT guy.
M. Foschi
You are right - I stand corrected.Originally Posted by Wren
Carbon fiber ductwork is legal because of 9.1.1.D.8.f:
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Carbon fiber is not permitted in any external bodywork. Cockpit [/FONT][FONT=Univers]interior panels, internal ductwork, air intakes and mirrors are not [/FONT][FONT=Univers]subject to this restriction. Kevlar may be used for reinforcement of [/FONT][FONT=Univers]any bodywork.[/FONT][/FONT]
Last edited by Camadella; 09.02.10 at 10:46 PM. Reason: Fixed tags again
The funniest bits in this whole thread are where Mr. Lee Stohr chimes in with his outlandish yet not completely unreasonable suggestions. This thread also sums up why the average age of SCCA membership (ESPECIALLY open wheel and sport racer) is increasing every year and shows no sign of going down. No offense meant to anyone who is still "young at heart".
Really? Go look at a Caldwell D13 and tell me what you would call the "frame" and what you'd call the "cockpit" and tell me again that you believe the "volume of the car" is the volume inside the frame.You can see where there's room for interpretation under the rule as to what the cockpit is, but I imagine any sane person would interpret "volume of the car" to mean "the volume inside the frame." I know I probably wouldn't be too fond of having my seat located outside of the frame but inside the body work
Hi Dave:
Actually, I think "ban" is the correct word, as the proposed new rules were written specifically to make our new car (and the Firman) illegal. I'm not saying that is YOUR motivation.
We are perfectly happy to abide by any decision of the Court of Appeals under the 2010 rules and I'm sure we could modify our car if they decided some of the details had to be changed.
If the proposed new rules pass, then we would have to completely redesign the chassis, redo all the aero design and CFD, retool most of the bodywork, and redesign the suspension. We simply don't have the resources to embark on what would, essentially, be a brand new design. I also doubt very much any of us would be inclined to do so.
Nathan
Nathan;
The rules clarification is only a proposal. As you have been told several times, the "clarification" of the rules is an on going processes that clearly predates you car. Step one of that clarification process covered the body work rules for FF and that process was completed a year ago. Because the FF and FC chassis rules are the same, this time FC became involved in an on going process. To say that the rules clarification was started because of you car is very self serving and the facts do not support your opinion.
Second; the fact is that that no currently homologated FF or FC will be affected by the clarification. So far as I can see your car is still a work in process and every one, me included, is only speculating on what you are actually doing.
Finally, your car will be judged by the 2010 GCR. And the rules clarification will be strongly influenced by the decision on your car. Many of the same SCCA officials will be involved in both, the homologation of your car and the final version of the rules clarification. Those people will not rule your car legal today and illegal when and if the clarifications ever make it to the GCR. What will likely happen is that the clarification will codify many of the design features of your car.
Chris C,
Maybe I missed it but what exactly is your position with Radon? I though you were working with the F2000 Nat Cham series as a Pr guy or a IT guy.
M. Foschi
Mike,
I am a partner of Nathan's in RadonSport.
Chris Camadella
Confession time? Radon?
Since you're acknowledging a bit of what has transpired, perhaps you could answer this: Why would you name a company after a colorless, tasteless, odorless, cancer-causing gas that is attributed to killing more than 20,000 people each year while serving no clear purpose?
Just curious...it doesn't seem like something a marketer would do--perhaps an engineer, but not a marketer.
Thanks,
Larry Oliver
Larry Oliver
That's a good question. Why would the Citation guys name their car after a speeding ticket?
We probably should have a rules "clarification" regarding car and company names.
Last edited by Camadella; 09.03.10 at 10:48 AM. Reason: Added smiley face
Radon, Citation
Maybe the only well-named manufacturer is Swift.
John Nesbitt
ex-Swift DB-1
Citation?
Actually, Citation was a Kentucy Derby winner, and one of the most famous race horses of the last century. Cessna named their line of bizjets "Citation." A citation can be (and is) a positive thing in most cases--such as a Citation for Valor.
Larry Oliver
Larry Oliver
I had two buddies in high school that had hand me down Citations. The chevy version. Hatchback. Not a great car but it got us from point A to point B.
Ken
I think the Radon could be called the Picaso. Apparently it's a work of art, The outside is the inside, and yesterday we found out that the front crush structure is apparently in the sidepod.
Chris, lets bring the project to light, how many investors are there and who are they? Seems like every one is walking on eggshells. It's always good to find out what the agenda of people is, don't you think?
What's your agenda Mr Foschi? what's Baytos's agenda? Lathrop's ? Mine?
It's none of anybodies business !
Radon's agenda is to build race cars. I'd call them a very rare and endangered species.
But hey, continue with the extermination.
I know my next car will be a Stohr, Novakar/Novak conversion or Radon.
It would be nice to see an F1000 car by Radon but the way this thing is going I do not think it would be anytime soon.
Call me Mike,
I have always had a problem with BS. This has BS all over it and my BS detector went nuts reading all of the pro Radon posts. You know, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Their reason for being = cheaper, easier, safer, BS. If the SCCA dosen't pass it there are other places to run = BS & where? If they don't pass it FC is over no one will ever ever build another one = BS. Inside is outside = BS. They don't want to make the other cars obsolete? Why not, isn't that why anyone would want to build a car? = BS
So if it all seems like their words do not make sense, I say to myself, "Self what else could the agenda be?"
As far as my agenda goes, I'm in it for the truth, justice and the American way, like a grounded Superman. My interest stems from my prior experience in F2000 for many years. I love the class, always have, and from what I can see some guys are f-en it all up while I've been away. I have no interest in any team, chassis manufacturer or series. I think this should have been handled differently, Radon should/could have presented detail drawings way before building anything, instead of building then trying to make everyone else feel like they are the bad guys trying to clarify the rules. It seems pretty intentional that an easy process was skirted in an effort to sneak something new by that only fits todays rules when you distort the meaning of words to the extreme.
As far as everyone elses agenda, you'll have to ask them.
Last edited by Mike Foschi; 09.03.10 at 3:15 PM.
i agree. i'm happy to see a new car. i wish there were more. we all try to maximize the rules. nobody gets into racing to lose or go slow, except maybe foschi. but i think this car could have been introduced in a better fashion...ric
....come on mike, you love the rain
Last edited by ric baribeault; 09.03.10 at 3:39 PM.
And another thing,
When Chris C. was going over all the other things that should/could make it fast ( suspension and aero etc), that is what they should be doing. Bringing in this carbon fiber crap is just fuel for the fire. To me, it is sort of disrespecting the other car builders that are not even close to as smart as some of us. They would never have thought about this stuff, they are just ordinary.
This reminds me of the Mosque nightmare in NYC at ground zero. They know it's pissing everyone off but they have an agenda that superceeds the feelings of the little people. If they would just move it to show a little understanding it would be let go by the people who are offended.
If you built your car leaving the carbon crap out and it were fast no one on here would give a rats ass, I think then you would sell cars and even get a pat on the back, maybe.
So you are for truth, justice and the American Way - except when somebody wants to build something on his own property.
Sorry, but if I have to chose between the BS of an old race promoter and the BS of a race car builder, I'll take the builder any time
Maybe it's because I was born in the 80's, but every time something fresh and different comes along there seems to be this old man stand on the porch with a shotgun get off my property mentality. It's 2010, we should start embracing new ideas and catch up to the rest of the world. New(er) engines, newer safety cell designs, newer impact attenuation designs should all start becoming the norm, rather than stretching the rules and pissing everyone off.
The thought that things are moving forward towards the 21st century is "messing everything up" is scary to me.
Sure things could have been presented differently, but honestly I think (and hope) this should spark a deep review of what should and should not be allowed in new cars.
-Bill Valet
NeDiv Swift DB-6 #83
You young punk, who needs that carbon crap! or that electronic crap! what about those triple adjustable shocks, who needs 'em? Heck, a good Truffault friction damper on leaf springs worked just fine in my day
Radon
Lee - I think its a simple question.Is the chassis built within the existing rules or not?I don't think anyone is trying to bypass that ,are they?Complain about the sanctioning body and its rules and then work to get them to change the specifics you think are issues. Bashing the sanctioning body is easy but unnecessary.If it is just a problem with carbon fiber panels why not use aluminum?
Sure there have been myriad advancements to make us go faster, but the advancements to make us safer pale in comparison (in lower level forumlae). I do understand that it's inevitable to want to spend as much as possible to go fast, and disregard our own safety though. That will never change. Why spend X amount on safety when I can spend X amount on gaining 2 tenths?
I do admire your humor and ability to get a point across though Lee!
-Bill Valet
NeDiv Swift DB-6 #83
"it is just a problem with carbon fiber panels why not use aluminum?" because reproducing the carbon shape in aluminum would cost 100x more.
Look, the Swift DB1 was totally illegal, completely trashed the intent of the rules, and yet the tribe gathered and approved it.
Now in 2010 the tribe has gathered and thrown Radon to the wolves.
We all know the arguement has nothing to do with safety or cost, the Radon excels in both areas. Chassis cost is an insignificant part of a new car cost anyway.
I'm coming from an earlier time, when race car technology progressed every year. I guess it's really nice that a guy can keep racing his DB1 for 30 years and still be competitive, but that's not racing to me.
I am in favor of a class like FC having spec areas: like max tire size, Ford engine, overall width and length, but let other areas progress with the times. Yes, older cars will go to vintage, but shouldn't they?
This is just my opinion, I realize it is no longer the majority opinion. That is why I'm doing other things.
Ok, this thread has fallen to name calling and some less than veiled personal character attacks. That needs to stop immediately, or this thread gets shut down and the offenders will have their posting rights restricted.
This topic can be discussed intelligently without resorting to mud slinging.
WOW, I feel violated. I spill my guts and you kick me in the nutsSo you are for truth, justice and the American Way - except when somebody wants to build something on his own property.
Sorry, but if I have to chose between the BS of an old race promoter and the BS of a race car builder, I'll take the builder any time.
My post does not say how I feel about the mosque, but the fact is it will most likely not be built at that location in our life time, maybe just like the Radon.
Sorry, I've had bad experiences with certain race promoters. I don't know Mr Foschi and shouldn't generalize.
However, I didn't realize it was possible to embarrass a New Yorker, and hey, when I put a smiley face on my comment it means it's not to be taken too seriously !
Last edited by Lee Stohr; 09.03.10 at 5:47 PM. Reason: sensitivity training
How much does a Radon FC cost?
With or without the carbon package?
Stonebridge Sports & Classics ltd
15 Great Pasture Rd Danbury, CT. 06810 (203) 744-1120
www.cryosciencetechnologies.com
Cryogenic Processing · REM-ISF Processing · Race Prep & Driver Development
Less with the cf panels
Hi Bill:
We plan to sell a roller Radon Rn.10 for less than a new Elan/Van Diemen FC car, which is $60k, and hope to be able to sell it for considerably less than that.
If the rules are changed to allow our car but require modifications, that may affect the cost.
Nathan
P.S. That price includes the carbon cockpit protection panels, carbon nose, carbon tail cone, and carbon radiator inlet ducts/impact attenuators.
Doug,
Ok, this thread has fallen to name calling and some less than veiled personal character attacks. That needs to stop immediately, or this thread gets shut down and the offenders will have their posting rights restricted.
This topic can be discussed intelligently without resorting to mud slinging.
I don't know if you know Mike F., but this ain't nothing, Mike ran a tight ship in FF2000 back when it was really tough to win on ovals or road courses and put up with our BS and our creativity much more than anything close to this. Actually, go buy a T shirt from his website and you'll understand were he's coming from (A university you may want to go to, as a hint)... a lot more than just a promoter, Lee has no idea, only because he doesn't know him...
This thread is so much better than watching a competitive club regional race...or court tv...
(Mike, you can send me a check next week or a free shirt, I think B. Lobenberg already bought one...LOL)
George Main
SpeedSense consulting
Gents;
A few hours before my shunt that ended a robust and insatiable thirty-nine year passion for racing, I quietly remarked to Rick III that this is supposed to be fun. Not only on the track, in the paddock, at Siebkens, in the shop or on Apex, it is simply supposed to be fun.
As such, I implore all to take a deep breath, grab another cup of Joe, and enjoy whatever it is that flips you switch.
Right wrong or indifferent, I personnally have come to admire and respect EVERYONE on Apex - unconditionally. But it make me ill-at-east to see the character of this site (read: the people that make it what it is) mired by both language and attitude.
Please, let's throttle back a bit and get on with it.
VERY RESPECTFULLY
Iverson II
Thanks for the plug George,Doug,
I don't know if you know Mike F., but this ain't nothing, Mike ran a tight ship in FF2000 back when it was really tough to win on ovals or road courses and put up with our BS and our creativity much more than anything close to this. Actually, go buy a T shirt from his website and you'll understand were he's coming from (A university you may want to go to, as a hint)... a lot more than just a promoter, Lee has no idea, only because he doesn't know him...
This thread is so much better than watching a competitive club regional race...or court tv...
(Mike, you can send me a check next week or a free shirt, I think B. Lobenberg already bought one...LOL)
FoschiU.com is the site.
George all of the money goes to to Sam Schmidt Foundation, so don't expect anything in the mail quite yet.
Why does the "carbon fiber crap" have you panties in such a twaddle?
While everyone's busy talking about the "intent" of the rules, why don't we talk about the "intent" of the rule banning carbon fiber components in FC cars? That rule was written in 1986, which was 24 years ago. At that time, carbon fiber was expensive. REALLY expensive. Labor was cheap, and nothing was manufactured in China. The reason for the rule was to prevent you from using exotic and very expensive materials in your FC chassis.
Now, it's 2010. Carbon fiber is cheap. As cheap as fiberglass. It's easy to form into panels, it's much less labor intensive than fitting a lot of tubes, and it's much, much safer in the event of a crash. The places in which we used the carbon fiber are, in our opinion, completely legal per the written 2010 rules, as we've said over and over. We think that an unbiased SCCA official will agree, and several national Tech inspectors have done just that. We're more than willing to hang our hat on the fact that our car is legal per the 2010 rules.
As a company, in business to sell a product, we are not required to share with you every technical innovation of our product, no differently than Coke shares its formula with Pepsi.
We are also not required to share with a list of the people that have invested in our company - that's our private business, and none of yours. I will tell you that the only people that have posted on this thread that have any financial interest in RadonSport are Nathan and me. I kind of doubt that all of the other posters are sharing with us the reasons and motiviations for them having their particular position on this topic, either.
Cheers,
Chris C.
I've talked to a lot of people at Mid-Ohio this weekend to try to understand any concerns about our new car. I can tell you it's a lot easier to discuss some of these issues in person, but I've made myself available via email and telephone to anyone as well.
First of all, as I've said over and over again, the cockpit protection panels provide no competitive advantage. They make the car safer and less expensive to manufacture, and I think they look nicer, but they don't make the car faster.
Second, the most recent of the photos I posted earlier was taken over two months ago. I'm not trying to be coy or unnecessarily secretive when I don't post more recent photos of the car, or ones showing a complete car, I just don't want to provide any more information to those interested in making our call illegal.
In my opinion, and that of everyone else who's seen the complete car, there aren't any additional controversial aspects of the design, but there are several innovations that I'd like to keep confidential as long as possible. They are the type of features that people react to by saying "Ah! Cool idea...why didn't someone else think of that" as opposed to "you can't do that!"
Nathan
Will you have the car on display at this years Run-offs?
1. I don't wear panties, I go commando now.
2. When you were in the Boy Scouts 3 years ago, and you were in the Pinewood Derby, did you make your car out of something other than wood? Then when they wouldn't let you play, start telling them that Al Gore says that the earth is going to explode because the trees are getting cut down, and the rules of the derby were made before Bam Bam, you know Barnie Rubbles kid, was in the boy Scouts, etc. etc.
3. If all you youngens want to change the rules to permit carbon and the like have at it, I've been told by many teams the Fran Am car was one of the best cars that ran over here. But.... don't ever think that is going to make a car cheaper. And the whole safer thing? Name me 5 people that have been seriously hurt in a FF or FC in the last 20 years due to structure failure or tubes collapsing. Carbon fiber is not the cure all for safty in racing, ask Alex Zanardi. I contend that if he were in a tube frame car it would not have split in half like an egg and lost his legs.
4. Your correct about the investors, none of anyones business, just curious. But the silence from some of the people that are known investors, in cash or time, is deafening. you know:RW,AG, PF,GF,
Last edited by Mike Foschi; 09.07.10 at 10:51 AM.
There are currently 40 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 40 guests)
Posting Permissions
