Radon photos

[mark defer]

Aluminum chassis ! why not? you made a decision to obselete every FF made in your 1986 meeting, you laid the seeds for Club Ford and vintage Ford. Not that I disagree, allowing more modern FF chassis like the Swift DB1 moved the class into the future a little ways. It was a brilliant design. And Club Ford and Vintage Ford have grown to be very strong classes.
So why not do it now?
I'm suggesting opening up the chassis rules for FC. But I would do it alongside new SCCA rules for chassis safety. Some kind of variation on FIA testing, some kind of rules that the average American club racer can deal with. Maybe the SCCA would offer some kind of assistance.
I fear you guys are making the same mistakes as government, you think more rules and regulation will stimulate the class. Actually less rules is a better way to go. Less words in the rulebook mean less splitting of hairs and fewer loopholes.

less words mean fewer loopholes?
oh yeh, i forgot. that's kinda like outside is inside.

mark d

[Daryl DeArman]

Actually less rules is a better way to go. Less words in the rulebook mean less splitting of hairs and fewer loopholes.

less words mean fewer loopholes?

Absolutely agree. I raced in the CDCRA in 93-94 and their rule "book" was all of 3 pages.

Real simple. Lots of rules were "OPEN". Hard to find loopholes or argue intent when it says "Open"

[problemchild]

They have a formula class with few rules. Traditionally known as Formula Libre, it is now called Formula S.

[DaveW]

IMO and experience, "open rules" are equivalent to unlimited cost when the competition gets heated. That leaves me out.

[Hardingfv32]

What is the big deal if there are a few flaws or loop holes in a set of rules? As in this case, if the competitors of a class don't like an innovation or loop hole you just add a rule to correct or stop it. Any SCCA competitor building new innovative designs or working a loop hole KNOWS the majority can kill their idea. That is the politics of our club. If you don't like this system find a different club.

Brian

[Lee Stohr]

Yep.

[Daryl DeArman]

...and many of us have.

[Matt King]

And some people wonder why things in the SCCA aren't "the way they used to be."

[Hardingfv32]

If you are implying that the rule process has changed, you are wrong. It has always been this way. If it was such a travesty, then it would have changed long ago.

Brian

[Dennis McCarthy]

Brian,

On the east coast it did change about five years ago for FC, its called FF2000 now...

[dc]

Yet the Pro series still touts that all SCCA GCR-legal cars are legal in their series, so who's rules are they really using?

I guess that really is what the whole thread is about, though—key members of the Pro F2000 Series ownership are financial investors in the Radon, and even (potential) car owners. They rule in favor of the car and they are thought to be favoring their own financial interest in a private company above the concept of the series. They rule against the car as it sits, and they rule against their own financial "investments."

The car is legal or it isn't, but the conflict of interest will sort itself out one way or the other eventually.




This is about a lot more than exploiting loopholes in the rulebook.

[nulrich]

Doug:

You have been misinformed. There is no financial connection between the F2000 pro series and Radon Sport. One (and only one) of the owners of the F2000 series has ordered a car, but his deposit on the car is insignificant in comparison to the money he has invested in the series.

If the other owners order a Piper, would you consider that a conflict of interest? They have to race something!

I'm sure the owners of the F2000 pro series will do what's in the best interest of the series, not Radon Sport.

Nathan

[Ron B.]

Doug:

You have been misinformed. There is no financial connection between the F2000 pro series and Radon Sport. One (and only one) of the owners of the F2000 series has ordered a car, but his deposit on the car is insignificant in comparison to the money he has invested in the series.

If the other owners order a Piper, would you consider that a conflict of interest? They have to race something!

I'm sure the owners of the F2000 pro series will do what's in the best interest of the series, not Radon Sport.

Nathan

....As of now the Piper is GCR legal. The jury is out on the Radon. That's kind of a big point.

[Daryl DeArman]

....As of now the Piper is GCR legal. The jury is out on the Radon. That's kind of a big point.

You missed the point entirely. If an owner of a Piper gets a say as to whether the Radon is legal/illegal isn't that as much of a conflict of interest as a Radon owner having a say?

[nulrich]

....As of now the Piper is GCR legal. The jury is out on the Radon. That's kind of a big point.

Are you sure? The same tortured reasoning used to assert the Radon is illegal under the 2010 GCR makes the Piper illegal, as well as newer Citations.

I think all of them are legal. As we've said over and over, we will abide by any decision of the Court of Appeals, just don't want the rules changed specifically to make one car illegal but not the others.

Nathan

[Mike Foschi]

Are you sure? The same tortured reasoning used to assert the Radon is illegal under the 2010 GCR makes the Piper illegal, as well as newer Citations.

I think all of them are legal. As we've said over and over, we will abide by any decision of the Court of Appeals, just don't want the rules changed specifically to make one car illegal but not the others.

Nathan

WOW! ...so now everyone is illegal. How?

Can I get a signed copy of your new book, " The Radon Way of Throwing Everyone Under The Bus and Making Friends in a Tini Tiny Industry" foreword by install punchline here. The second in a trilogy, the first being, "The Shaft - The disappearance of Bill Stevens" the story of how he paid for all these parts then got the .....you guessed it..."the Shaft".

[HazelNut]

has anyone else grown REALLY tired of all this stupid bickering?

[dc]

Ok guys, let's all bring it down a notch here. This isn't going anywhere at this point, and the back and forth jousting can stop anytime. I'm going to leave this thread open, and not going to warn anyone privately, so this is the last yellow flag. Next time, this thread gets closed and locked up tight.

If you have something to contribute, then feel free. But if you are just adding to the white noise, keep it to yourself.

[R.DeVoe]

I’m a FF racer and I’ve read most, not all, of this thread. I believe that some of the points along the way were valid while others (name calling and finger pointing) were elementary.

In the first post of this thread, Dr. Ulrich addressed the proposed rule changes in the September Fastrack and gave us information on the new car being built by Radon Sport, the Rn.10. This was a proactive measure taken to prevent this new car from being outlawed from competition before it even takes a green flag lap.

Radon Sport is trying build a racecar that goes faster while being safer. That is the reason why any new racecar is built. Why isn’t the answer ‘to make money?’ Because the only way to make a million dollars in racing is to spend two.

The proposed rule changes in the September Fastrack make the Radon illegal. This is my reason against CRB #2228. Radon Sport hasn’t devoted substantial resources (financial and other), created numerous business relationships, consulted with SCCA and F2000 Championship Series professionals, to manufacture an illegal car. There seems to be a substantial amount of rule changes proposed by the same individual, Richard Pare. It should be noted that he has an economic interest in the company manufacturing Citation racecars, which would be competitors of Radon Sport. Although this shouldn’t exclude him from proposing rule changes, it does raise concerns about the objectivity of his proposals. Example: see FF/FC 1.D.7.a. What does it matter if my floor pan is “approximately parallel” to the ground or not? Just because Citations, Van Diemens, Swifts, etc are “approximately parallel” to the ground, why does the Radon have to be? Is this truly a necessary rule?

There has also been much debate over the carbon fiber side panels, which are to prevent cockpit protrusions. I can recall a F2000 Championship Series race at LimeRock Park in 2008 (I believe) where the front toe link on a Citation (I believe) chassis broke in a crash and pierced the body panel along with the driver’s ankle. This injury required medical attention and ended his weekend (please correct my foggy memory if necessary). This is proof that the carbon fiber panels are an improvement worth having. The car also uses FIA crash standards in many areas of the car, including roll over. This is above and beyond the safety requirements of the GCR and Radon Sport should be commended for their efforts.

Need more proof that an advancement in safety would benefit drivers? Either look at your HANS device or watch this video, it is only 2m05s. At a minimum, watch the first 20 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs

We should embrace new technology (in both materials and processes) as it becomes developed. Pinto vs. Zetec, Kent vs. Fit, that goofy foam neck collar we all used to wear vs HANS device, and now fiberglass vs. carbon fiber.

The Radon Sport Rn.10 should be allowed to compete under race conditions before any rule changes are imposed that would make the Rn.10, or any future car for that matter, illegal. An alternative is to make a ‘competition adjustment’ if necessary. For example: Grand-Am often adds/ deducts ballast or changes the amount of boost a car can run if one particular manufacturer is faster than the others (bmw vs chevy vs porsche vs subaru) to keep the playing field level. They certainly don’t change the rules to outlaw the car prior to its participation in a race.

Thanks for reading my unexpectedly long two cents. There is more I wanted to say, but forgot it along the way. I welcome your replies.

Thanks ApexSpeed

[Lee Stohr]

I think there's a lot of good stuff here, maybe it's scattered over 10 pages.

There's only one guy on here that's talking, and I quote - "BS, BS, BS, BS, f-en, BS, Crap, rat's ass, Crap, BS"

However, I am all for free speech, I see no reason to close the topic.

[Rick Iverson]

Gents;

I think this might be 'a propos' and worthy of a reprint right about now:

".....immediately upon the explosive demise of the FFU.....the Carters....graciously offered a home for C/FF teams to play, share, bond, bench race, lament, or just bitch about the SCCA (higher HQs is ALWAYS screwed up).

We are here because we could not play together well, we poorly dabbled in politics, we resorted to character bashing, and we could care less about the forum moderation posed by Jake Lamont and Dave Hopple.

Lest we forget, we are quests in the Carter home. Please remove your hat when you enter, take off your shoes before you step onto the carpet, grab yourself a cold Rolling Rock and let's go racing!"

With profound respect

Iverson

[carnut169]

I’m a FF racer and I’ve read most, not all, of this thread. I believe that some of the points along the way were valid while others (name calling and finger pointing) were elementary.

In the first post of this thread, Dr. Ulrich addressed the proposed rule changes in the September Fastrack and gave us information on the new car being built by Radon Sport, the Rn.10. This was a proactive measure taken to prevent this new car from being outlawed from competition before it even takes a green flag lap.

Radon Sport is trying build a racecar that goes faster while being safer. That is the reason why any new racecar is built. Why isn’t the answer ‘to make money?’ Because the only way to make a million dollars in racing is to spend two.


Need more proof that an advancement in safety would benefit drivers? Either look at your HANS device or watch this video, it is only 2m05s. At a minimum, watch the first 20 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs

We should embrace new technology (in both materials and processes) as it becomes developed. Pinto vs. Zetec, Kent vs. Fit, that goofy foam neck collar we all used to wear vs HANS device, and now fiberglass vs. carbon fiber.

The Radon Sport Rn.10 should be allowed to compete under race conditions before any rule changes are imposed that would make the Rn.10, or any future car for that matter, illegal. An alternative is to make a ‘competition adjustment’ if necessary. For example: Grand-Am often adds/ deducts ballast or changes the amount of boost a car can run if one particular manufacturer is faster than the others (bmw vs chevy vs porsche vs subaru) to keep the playing field level. They certainly don’t change the rules to outlaw the car prior to its participation in a race.

Thanks for reading my unexpectedly long two cents. There is more I wanted to say, but forgot it along the way. I welcome your replies.

Thanks ApexSpeed

I agree with the above.

Interesting video. I always thought that almost the opposite would happen due to the weight of the older car...

[Beartrax]

There has also been much debate over the carbon fiber side panels, which are to prevent cockpit protrusions. I can recall a F2000 Championship Series race at LimeRock Park in 2008 (I believe) where the front toe link on a Citation (I believe) chassis broke in a crash and pierced the body panel along with the driver’s ankle. This injury required medical attention and ended his weekend (please correct my foggy memory if necessary). This is proof that the carbon fiber panels are an improvement worth having. The car also uses FIA crash standards in many areas of the car, including roll over. This is above and beyond the safety requirements of the GCR and Radon Sport should be commended for their efforts.

First of all, well stated.

To help your foggy memory, I believe it was a Piper where the suspension came through and injured the driver. Not to pick on Piper. I imagine if any formula car hits a guardrail at the wrong angle the suspension could come through and cause harm.

[John LaRue]

Mr. Devoe,

It has previously been stated previously (and I will confirm to the best of my knowledge) Richard Pare' has no financial interest in Citation Engineering, the manufacturer of the Citation FF, FC and FB chassis. That is an entity owned by Steve Lathrop. As I recall Richard sold his interest in that company in the mid 1990's sometime before I started racing. Richard owns ICP the manufacturer of varous components including the ICP calipers which are found on Van Diemans, RFR's, and Citations.

Richard graciously offered his time to help draft a re-write of the rules. This process started many years ago; long before the Radon was ever thought of. (post 2007 Runoffs)

Instead of bashing people for trying to help our sport (without compensation or so much as a thanks) why don't you roll up your sleeves and get involved? As my father used to say, "If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem".

John.

[Hardingfv32]

What is the technical heart of this issue? That the driver protection panels are being used as stressed panels to strengthen the frame?

Can a panel mounting system be specified that maintains the driver safety properties while precluding the chassis strengthening aspects?

Is there any requirement for the panels to be mounted on the inside or outside of the frame?

Brian

[Steve Demeter]

What John said.

Also it was posted several pages back that richard has no financial interest in the building of cars.

No good deed will go unpunished.

[Wren]

The proposed rule changes in the September Fastrack make the Radon illegal. This is my reason against CRB #2228.

No, it was illegal from sometime around 1986 forward. Possibly before then.

Radon Sport hasn’t devoted substantial resources (financial and other), created numerous business relationships, consulted with SCCA and F2000 Championship Series professionals, to manufacture an illegal car.

Actually, that's likely the reason for the damage control. Consulting with people who know what they are doing would have prevented a lot of this.

There seems to be a substantial amount of rule changes proposed by the same individual, Richard Pare. It should be noted that he has an economic interest in the company manufacturing Citation racecars, which would be competitors of Radon Sport.

I doubt your claim that you have read this thread. The lie you have posted above has been disproven already.

Would you care to share with us what is such a huge change in the rules? It is a clarification. There have been a lot of attempts to claim that this is a massive change, but no one has actually been able to say what would make it a change. We've seen lies and misrepresentations, but nothing remotely related to a fact.

There has also been much debate over the carbon fiber side panels, which are to prevent cockpit protrusions. I can recall a F2000 Championship Series race at LimeRock Park in 2008 (I believe) where the front toe link on a Citation (I believe) chassis broke in a crash and pierced the body panel along with the driver’s ankle. This injury required medical attention and ended his weekend (please correct my foggy memory if necessary).

Your foggy memory has already been corrected. I'm pretty sure there wasn't even a Lime Rock race in 2008, please don't let that stop you from making accusations.

This is proof that the carbon fiber panels are an improvement worth having. The car also uses FIA crash standards in many areas of the car, including roll over. This is above and beyond the safety requirements of the GCR and Radon Sport should be commended for their efforts.

No one has a problem with increased safety, it takes genuine intellectual dishonesty to try to phrase the debate as that.

The Radon Sport Rn.10 should be allowed to compete under race conditions before any rule changes are imposed that would make the Rn.10, or any future car for that matter, illegal. An alternative is to make a ‘competition adjustment’ if necessary. For example: Grand-Am often adds/ deducts ballast or changes the amount of boost a car can run if one particular manufacturer is faster than the others (bmw vs chevy vs porsche vs subaru) to keep the playing field level. They certainly don’t change the rules to outlaw the car prior to its participation in a race.

What a great idea. I would propose that we lock in the Crosle 25 as the standard for FF and the DB3 for FC. Everyone should have their car nerfed back to that level. We should definitely screw the whole concept of non-spec racing.

People don't have a problem with building a better mousetrap. I have not heard one person express even the slightest bit of concern that the Radon will be better than what is out there. The question is whether or not everyonoe is building to the same set of rules.

[Thomas Copeland]

I've already moved on to something much more important.......my fantasy football score....

[Mike Foschi]

Wren, good post.

I was going to do that but Lee Stohr would have taken offense if I did it.

I also have a hard time responding like that to some one that thinks Camadella's line that he uses as a footer about speed and money is contemporary. I've heard that line 30 years ago.

Can someone tell me why the Hans devise keeps getting thrown into this debate, it has nothing to do with the building of the car, and has never been illegal. If the people using it thinks that's why we should accept the new "hybrid"than they might as well throw in closed face helmets and 3 layer suits, etc.

[Beartrax]

Some people need to scroll up and read #378...

[Stan Clayton]

What is the technical heart of this issue? That the driver protection panels are being used as stressed panels to strengthen the frame?

Technically no, since the panels do not meet the GCR definition of a stressed panel. However, not everyone writing here appears to understand the distinction, and so we see a lot of co-mingling of issues.

Can a panel mounting system be specified that maintains the driver safety properties while precluding the chassis strengthening aspects?

It is basic physics that any anti-intrusion system strong enough to protect the driver and securely enough attached to the frame to remain in place during a collision is going to add some strength to the frame. The 1985 Adhoc Committee understood this fact very clearly, which is why they didn't try to "forbid" frame strengthening. In fact, being smart enough to know they could not outlaw it, they specifically decided to limit the strengthening effect by specifying that attachment points be located no less than 6" apart.

In FIA FC-type tube frame chassis, anti-intrusion panels are permitted fewer attachment points than is permitted in SCCA. In FIA the panels are attached only at the four corners, plus once in the middle of the upper, lower, front and rear spans, and once in the middle of each diagonal tube. The number and type of attachment points are specified to minimize the strength the panels add to the chassis, while ensuring they remain in place during a collision. Moreover, FIA chassis must pass all their quasi-static and crash tests without the panels in place...only then are the panels added.

Since Dr. Ulrich is so keen to point out that his chassis incorporates many FIA safety standards, perhaps he can address whether it will pass the FIA's side intrusion test without the panels in place?

Is there any requirement for the panels to be mounted on the inside or outside of the frame?

Outside only, per GCR 9.1.1.D.7.b.1.

[Dennis McCarthy]

Over the years I've seen many "cockpit intrusion" panels that were supposed to protect the driver in all kinds of formula cars from Vees to FE and FCs. I've seen many fastened inside the framework as well with all kinds of fastening methods from pop rivets to plastic tyewraps. As far as protecting the driver, unless the panel is outside the framework, and securely fastened I don't believe they will do very much. Certainly in 2010 we can do better than a thin sheet of aluminum that is suceptible to penetration and tearing.

[Wren]

Technically no, since the panels do not meet the GCR definition of a stressed panel. However, not everyone writing here appears to understand the distinction, and so we see a lot of co-mingling of issues.

And the panels never will meet the definition of stressed panel until they are aluminum or steel, which the stressed panel definition is very clear about. Carbon panels are not covered, period.

Would anyone protest someone for having their carbon dashboard or their carbon radio mounts attached on less than 6" centers or even glued on?

[Daryl DeArman]

And the panels never will meet the definition of stressed panel until they are aluminum or steel, which the stressed panel definition is very clear about. Carbon panels are not covered, period.

We agree. They don't meet the SCCA GCR definition of a stressed panel. Do go back and read the GCR again though. They don't have to be AL or Steel. The GCR is very clear that they be metal.

No need to address every other type of material because if it isn't "metal" it can't be considered a stressed panel per the SCCA GCR definition.

Would anyone protest someone for having their carbon dashboard or their carbon radio mounts attached on less than 6" centers or even glued on?

Depends....is their carbon radio mount actually a Radon side intrussion panel that they've attached less than 6" on center or bonded?

[jim morgan]

Now when Puderpotty gets tired of bickering it may have gone too far.

[HazelNut]

Now when Puderpotty gets tired of bickering it may have gone too far.

seriously, and that's mr. puderpotty to you jim.

[Matt King]

Technically no, since the panels do not meet the GCR definition of a stressed panel. However, not everyone writing here appears to understand the distinction, and so we see a lot of co-mingling of issues.

So what exactly is the specific issue of legality that is being debated here? Is it the location of the panel relative to the chassis tubes, i.e., whether the panel is attached to the inside or outside plane of the tubing?

[BlakeRacer]

May I ask what the gcr points out as a stressed panel?

[Wren]

No need to address every other type of material because if it isn't "metal" it can't be considered a stressed panel per the SCCA GCR definition.

The GCR does actually consider every other type of material. Covered in the first four sentences of the FC section.

Depends....is their carbon radio mount actually a Radon side intrussion panel that they've attached less than 6" on center or bonded?

That's pretty much correct. They want you to believe that the rules meant to cover dashboards, radio mounts, shift tube shrouds, etc. should also allow in giant structural carbon panels. Nothing tortuous about that?

[Daryl DeArman]

GCR 9.1.1.b.1


"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)."