Radon photos

[carl correll]

What an amusing line of conversation. I had to pull up the 2010 GCR to see if it had changed much since I first met Jesus at Firebird in 1986.

The rule B.1 prohibits monocoque construction. It's really that simple. A tube frame can be stiffened with two stress bearing panels, the floor and a bulkhead. These panels are clearly defined in the rule. The Radon photos show that panels have been affixed to what is clearly a tube frame in a way that clearly is defined in B.1 as not a stress bearing panel. It's a tube frame chassis. A very clever one.

I, myself am pretty impressed at some original thinking. Engineers usually can't do that. Forgive the use of the expression, but some of you guys are Luddites.

[nulrich]

What do you think about FF and FC since the 1986 rules? Have the classes covered by those rules done well?. Those rules were written by the CRB and the active manufacturers at the time.

I think those cars have been fine for the class. However, the fields are declining everywhere but in the F2000 pro series, and there is a need for new cars. If the goal is to serve an aging population of FF/FC drivers and not attract younger drivers, then keeping the class static and preventing new cars is fine. There hasn't been any improvement in these cars in 10-15 years, they haven't kept up with safety advances, nor has anyone really taken advantage of improvements in manufacturing technology to make a less expensive and more accurate car. (The fact that every body part must be hand cut and fit to every individual chassis is pretty scary! That approach predates Henry Ford.)

Practically all the cars that make up FF and FC today were built by manufacturers represented at that meeting. Until now all the manufacturers of cars running in FF and FC have stuck to the letter and the "intent" of those rules.

Having some mysterious "intent" that is not written down anywhere or known to members of the CRB, then changing the rules when a new manufacturer designs a (potentially) better car is certainly an effective method of preventing new constructors . Someone probably should have told me about the constructor's secret handshake before we designed and built our car, don't you think?

Leading up to that meeting in 1986 there was a significant push to loosen the "tube frame rules" and allow aluminum monocoque construction. The argument was the same that the Radon proponents are making now for their car, cheaper, safer and we should modernize. I see a lot of tube frame cars that are racing today that predate the 1986 rules rewrite; I don't see very many monocoque cars that are even at the track. The fact is that monocoque construction is not as durable as a tube frame. The same is true for composite tubs. They delaminate with use and for the most part have to be replaced after a time. At least we could rebuild the aluminum tubs.

The Radon frame is not a monocoque. The panels are not bonded to anything, they are bolted and easily removed and replaced. Repairing an Rn.10 chassis is easier than repairing your typical FF/FC car.

Look at how much trouble people have keeping the belly pans firmly attached to the bottom of their tube frames. Do you really think the Radon will not experience some problems keeping the safety panels in place?

Our belly pan is 16 gage 4130 steel and is continuously welded to the lower main frame rails. It's also protected by 2 mm of solid Kevlar where it's in close proximity to the ground. I'm pretty confident that if I can keep structural composite parts attached to metal frames in outer space and on deep ocean vehicles, keeping them in place on the race track won't be an issue. If you saw how the attachment was engineered and our structural analysis, you wouldn't doubt it either.

And so what if we experience problems? It's not like a bad weld or a cracked frame member buried under paint somewhere, it will be obvious and easy to diagnose and repair. It hardly seems to me that potential teething problems are an argument against trying something new and different (and potentially better).

Nathan

[Tom Valet]

Assuming that the Radon is legal under 2010 GCR rules and receives homologation from SCCA, would all future Radon's built to the same design also be legal even if the new proposed rules go into effect in 2011 and prohibit that design going forward?

If so, and if the new rules go into effect, then no other manufacturer would be able to emulate this design unless they too get homologation before the new rules are adopted. That would be very ironic if it happened.

(In the past SCCA has followed this practice of basing legality of a car on the date of homologation of the initial car to receive homologation. For example, they did this with the front crush boxes on the DB-1--no crush box required even if built after January 1986 because the earlier DB-1s dont have crush boxes).

[Hardingfv32]

It sounds like the SCCA homologation process needs to be much more sophisticated. To insure the "intent" of the rules is followed it would seem a committee including some of a classes car manufactures would be required.

This current issue could easily be controlled at the homologation level. Of coarse an approved car would have to be maintained as homologated for this to work.

Brian

[Daryl DeArman]

What do you think about FF and FC since the 1986 rules? Have the classes covered by those rules done well?. Those rules were written by the CRB and the active manufacturers at the time.

Since you asked....I think the FF and FC class health has been relatively stagnant at best. However, I don't believe that has anything to do with whether or not I believe the Radon is 2010 GCR compliant.

The rules as written, may have served the class well because a fresh set of eyes hadn't read them. It's been my experience that those involved in a class "forever" often believe the rules say something they don't.

[S Lathrop]

Nathan;

Maybe we should be discussing using F3 chassis rules for a new class. That should have been done decades ago. If you were making that argument I would be right there with you.

As to intent, funny how all the existing FC cars are very similar except your proposed entry to the class? I always thought that the words on the page of the GCR were intended to convey a meaning intended by the author. Is that not intent?

Trying to transform FC into F3 light is not the way to go. But that is my opinion and I will stick to it right or wrong.

It also appears to me that any time people have fooled with the basic FC rules as its framers intended , success has been elusive. Look at the former versions of F2000 pro series and the current IRL version.

I can't fault you for your business model. Create a demand for your new car by introducing a car that has a competitive advantage over existing cars. You sell cars because guys want the winning combination. You prosper over the short tern. Maybe this works well because you drive the price down on existing cars so people can enter the class on the cheap with good but uncompetitive equipment. Hopefully you don't loose any entries as you do this. Given what I have seen in Formula Atlantic and the various versions of F2000 and even going back to FSV, I am going to bet against F2000 prospering if you succeed. I think the likely out come will be 1 to 2 entries lost for every car you sell. I see the strength of the F2000 series as the masters and this only will appeal to a few of those guys. The kids with daddy's bucks have more glamorous opportunities to go on a spending spree.

In some ways I find it sad that all the work you have done in designing this car to improve the breed will only be seen as successful if you prevail in fiddling the rules to your advantage. And not that you have made some fundamental contribution the class much as David Bruns did for FF.

[Matt King]

This whole debate reminds me of the scene in Cool Hand Luke when the gang is betting on whether Luke can eat 50 eggs.

[FONT=Courier]SOCIETY RED[/FONT]

[FONT=Courier]He peels the eggs himself. That's [/FONT]
[FONT=Courier]understood.[/FONT]

[FONT=Courier]DRAGLINE[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier]You jus' may be great at hangin' [/FONT]
[FONT=Courier]paper around the big cities, but us [/FONT]
[FONT=Courier]country boys is not entirely [/FONT]
[FONT=Courier]brainless. When it comes to the law, [/FONT]
[FONT=Courier]nothin' is understood.[/FONT]

[FONT=Courier]LOUDMOUTH STEVE[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier]Who made what law about peeling his [/FONT]
[FONT=Courier]eggs?[/FONT]

[Dennis McCarthy]

Steve,

I very curious as to who you think is going to step up and build and supply new cars and parts in a both a down economy in a very limited market?

I am currently in the market for a new car and my preference is to buy a car that is made in the US, I have dealt with the overseas suppliers before and I'm not anxious to do that again.

So who can I pick up the phone and call today and have a new car delivered next week?

[nulrich]

Steve:

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. We think our car is perfectly legal by the written rules in the GCR. It sounds like we violated the "secret handshake" and upset the status quo, but I won't apologize for that since we didn't know about it!

I've made no attempt to "fiddle with the rules" or change them to our advantage. In fact, the rules in the 2010 GCR are almost identical to the 1986 rules, it is the proposed new rules that differ dramatically from what your "framers" wrote.

Just because all existing cars are built a certain way doesn't mean it's the best way, especially in 2010.

As for the F2000 pro series, which is our main focus, we have absolutely no intention of ruining the best thing about the series, which is the level of close competition. We have been talking with the owners of the series for over a year, and all along accepted the possibility of a handicap if our car did turn out to be faster.

Let's leave it there. I respect your work and look forward to meeting you at the Runoffs.

Regards,

Nathan

[Richard Learned]

Dennis,
I'll betcha Doug and Doug Jr can come as close as anybody with a new Piper. Absolutely beautiful workmanship, right here in the good ol' US of A and parts support at the end of your phone line. If only I had the bucks...

Richard L

[John Robinson II]

Steve,

So who can I pick up the phone and call today and have a new car delivered next week?

Dennis, the only builder you could call right now and get a complete new US built car from Is Piper. The citation is sold in kit form, as sourcing and putting together all the pieces is the PITA part of the process. But be warned, those chassis are not sitting there waiting for an engine. So the comment about getting one next week is not possible.

Nathan,
Is the bottom of the side pods even with the floor pan? I now see your understanding of the rule concerning the protection panels not being a stress bearing panel but was thrown at first due to your explanation of the fasteners used in the chassis tubes, seems extreme for non load bearing panels...

John

[S Lathrop]

Steve,


So who can I pick up the phone and call today and have a new car delivered next week?

The chassis that was on display at the 2009 Run Offs with the Fit engine is actually a Zetec chassis and is sitting in my garage. You appear to be in impulse buyer. In all the years and over 250 cars I have produced, I have never had any luck serving the impulse buyer market.

I chose the kit as a business model because it allows me to provide the highest value to my customers at the lowest cost. My best customers have been "do it your self" types with limited resources. The last chassis is number 9 and the only one un-sold in the last production run. I will have 3 cars from the current run at this years run offs and a reasonable shot at 3 championships.

While the current car looks very much like DW's 1994 Citation, it is an all new design in 2006. The new car is 15% stiffer, lighter (requiring nearly 90 lbs ballast in a recent case) and has many improvements to enhance mechanical grip.

Given the current economic climate and state of road racing, I think having your doors open is doing alright.

[Daryl DeArman]

Given the current economic climate and state of road racing, I think having your doors open is doing alright.

Amen. Unfortunately, some of us come from racing backgrounds where a new chassis and motor was as easy as a phone call away. Of course, you didn't see any chassis in the first half of the field older than 3 or 4 years old. I guess when you sell that many chassis it makes sense to keep a few in stock.

[S Lathrop]

Amen. Unfortunately, some of us come from racing backgrounds where a new chassis and motor was as easy as a phone call away. Of course, you didn't see any chassis in the first half of the field older than 3 or 4 years old. I guess when you sell that many chassis it makes sense to keep a few in stock.

The inventory turn over for frames on post 94 Citations has been zero. I consider the frame in stock as an unsold kit. We have had them crushed from the front, the rear, the side and the top. The only chassis repair that I have done is to repair cracks caused by the mountings for the skid blocks.

As the chassis have advanced to accommodate ever better tires, they are becoming more crash resistant. I am certain the VD is having the same experience.

I may be unique in that all my drivers tend to be veterans.

[Daryl DeArman]

I don't mean to imply that requiring a new chassis every 3 years or so would be good for the class. When the rules and the technology almost require newer chassis to remain competitive there are a lot more chassis being manufactured, therefore just a phone call away.

[Larry]

It's still a capitalistic market, following the laws of supply and demand. Unfortunately, the demand isn't sufficient to build cars for inventory. The number of manufacturers that have tried to build a company on formula car production and have failed far exceeds the number that have succeeded. Guys like Steve and Doug are probably happy to cover their costs of production. Making a decent return on investment is largely a dream.

The pro realm is less sensitive to price, but far more sensitive to technology--as in a winning chassis. Reynard and Lola are excellent examples. They both built small formula cars for a while, and were reasonably successful (as in profitable). They stepped up to the big money in Indy cars and lasted for only a few years.

While I have never been a big fan of Ralph Firman, I admire the fact that he was able to build and sustain a viable business for more than 20 years as Van Diemen. Today most of the formula car manufacturers put out 5 or 10 cars in a year. If you tried to build a business plan based solely on formula car manufacturing (including tooling, engineering and support), you'd be pretty depressed after about 20 minutes of running the numbers!

International Racing Products has been in business for nearly 20 years. I've sold over $1 million in formula car spares and support equipment. I have a fairly large portion of the domestic formula car parts business, and I even have a reasonable amount of export business. In spite of this, I haven't been able to build IRP to the point where I can make a living from it. The only reason I'm not swallowed by folks like Pegasus is that they sell generic items, while I carry specialty make pieces for the likes of Reynard, Zink and Van Diemen. I assume they considered stocking such things, estimated the inventory turnover rates and came to the conclusion that people like me are crazy! It's probably a valid conclusion, since I can count the number of years that I've made a profit on one hand. I admire Pegasus, too, as they have built a very successful business by supporting a much broader base than just formula cars. Others have succeeded by including prep shop work or running drivers or starting a series.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

[nulrich]

Nathan,
Is the bottom of the side pods even with the floor pan?

Only at one point .

I now see your understanding of the rule concerning the protection panels not being a stress bearing panel but was thrown at first due to your explanation of the fasteners used in the chassis tubes, seems extreme for non load bearing panels...

There are two terms that have sometimes been used interchangeably here, but they are very different from a rules standpoint.

"Stress-bearing panels" are defined in the GCR as panels that are attached with centers closer than six inches. That's been the definition since at least 1985, and perhaps earlier (anyone know?). Our cockpit protection panels are not stress-bearing panels.

"Structural panels," on the other hand, could be defined as any panel that contributes to the stiffness and strength of a car. This is a much more ambiguous term, since even floppy fiberglass bodywork, mounted to the car in only a few places, contribute to chassis stiffness in some measure. Our cockpit protection panels are definitely structural, but that is not prohibited in the GCR...except in the FB rules.

A well-written rule is one that can clearly and easily be interpreted and, more importantly, measured in an objective way. That's why the six-inch rule for "stress-bearing panels" is so clever, and a term like "structural" or "load bearing" panels would be a bad choice for rules language.

Hope that helps! I didn't mean to ignore your questions for so long, but there have been a number of postings on this thread...lol.

Nathan

[John Robinson II]

Only at one point .


Nathan

So the floor pan and the side pods create a tunnel that compresses the air and exits at the start of the diffuser, there by making the diffuser more effective and locating the center of under car aero balance, right?

and this is where the clarification about the floor pan being relatively parallel to the ground would make your car illegal?

John

[nulrich]

Hi John:

No, that's not how the car is designed, air is directed around and under the sidepods like an F1 car. I believe your approach would be illegal per the current rules, involving openings in the bodywork not used for heat exchangers or engine air intake. Interesting idea, though!

You are correct, though, that the proposed new rules would make our car illegal since our floor pan is not "approximately parallel" to the ground...depending on how you define "approximately," of course!

Nathan

[Ivinsea]

While I have never been a big fan of Ralph Firman...

Larry,
Would you mind expanding your comment?

In my brief exposure to formula cars, the only criticisms I have heard of Van Diemen is that some of the hardware is substandard and that the cars are turned out rather quickly and need to checked carefully before being run.

Thanks!

Ivin

[Larry]

I'm no expert on his products, but I do know of an occasional chassis that hasn't been true. How prevalent this was, I do not know. My comment was more aimed at Ralph's personality than his products, but as I said, I have a certain amount of admiration for anyone that can be successful over the long haul in building formula cars. There just aren't many that can do it! Therefore, most of the people in the business do it out of love of the sport. Occasionally someone gets too deep into it and they do some questionable things while trying to make a go of it. Fortunately, this is a small community and the word gets out fast!

Right now I'm about 75% through restoring a 1972 Titan. Titan built several hundred cars (as best I can tell), but eventually moved into an area that seemed either more profitable or more stable. Titan Engineering still exists, and they still make oil pumps, steering racks and other components. They survived by evolving. Others just kind of disappeared. I sincerely hope that we have more folks producing formula cars in the near future--and I would especially like to see US manufacturers. As I mentioned, I've run the numbers, and it would take a HUGE amount of capital to set up a 100% dedicated operation to formula car production. Radon seems to have addressed this through shared facilities with someone involved in aerospace.

The cost driver may be the reason for the lack of progress in chassis design during the last 10-15 years (or longer). It's definitely a two-edged sword, though. It keeps older cars competitive for a longer period, but there are very few new cars entering, which means there is no trickle-down.

Many of you know that I'm a fan of AJ Pugliese's Banshee. It is Formula Ford-like in it's performance, but it uses an aircooled VW engine. It's a real race car, and it can be purchased NEW for under $20K! Complete! Compared to $60K FB and what I expect will be $75K FC, the Banshee is a great bargain. They run it in FRCCA, which is solely a formula car group (No Miata's to contend with for track time!)

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

[Mike Foschi]

Does anyone know what happened in the Double Secret Secret Constructors meeting that no one was supposed to know about???

Rumer has it that anyone might be able to build anything and it will be legal.

Rumer has it that adding wieght to slow down cars might be in the future of certain race series.

Rumer has it that 20 car fields are going to be the norm next year in all classes of open wheel racing.

[Beartrax]

Does anyone know what happened in the Double Secret Secret Constructors meeting that no one was supposed to know about???

Rumer has it that anyone might be able to build anything and it will be legal.

Rumer has it that adding wieght to slow down cars might be in the future of certain race series.

Rumer has it that 20 car fields are going to be the norm next year in all classes of open wheel racing.

Just when the thread had been staying on topic....
Did you intend to say, "[FONT=Verdana]Rumor has it that..."? (Rumer is the daughter of Bruce Wills & Demi Moore)[/FONT]

[HazelNut]

Rumer has it that 20 car fields are going to be the norm next year in all classes of open wheel racing.

that's a HUGE car gain for some series, I guess a few more 13 year olds won Mega Millions?

[nulrich]

(almost said something I'd regret later...ain't the Internet grand?)

Nathan

[Mike Foschi]

I guess that means you 3 had no info?

I'm just asking a simple question, nothing more. You guys got to stop reading into this stuff.

[HazelNut]

I'm not reading into anything.

It's a fairly well established fact that there are very few series who can maintain acceptable car counts.



and I'm still tired of all the bickering and BS.

[Mike Foschi]

I'm not reading into anything.

It's a fairly well established fact that there are very few series who can maintain acceptable car counts.



and I'm still tired of all the bickering and BS.

Thanks for the facts, I thought that was only a rumer also, now I can sleep easy tonight...and I don't bicker..yes you do...no I don't...yes...

[provamo]

who cares about the cf panels....it seems the red herring is the floor/sidepod configuration and subsequent aero advantage

[allof6]

Well! In or out?

[Purple Frog]

The Radon would have to be built and show up at a SCCA event to know if it will be in or out.

[Mike Foschi]

The Radon would have to be built and show up at a SCCA event to know if it will be in or out.

I don't think that's totally true Mike, I think they could submit the plans and get a yea or nea before they spend anymore time, effort and money.
But, when I read your line I had a vision that you looked a little like Nancy Pelosi when she said that we would have to pass the healthcare bill BEFORE we see what's in it.

[Purple Frog]

Mike,

I'm researching... but i believe you can 'self-protest' yourself on individual items in question. Talking to tech folks, etc, at the Runoffs, no one had ever heard of 'self-protesting' the plans for a complete car. Maybe a first?

And just because the plans might be judged legal, the car could be built differently. The true acid test is when it arrives at impound, or tries to get a logbook.

And we all now know from this thread 5 pages ago that the homolagation process proves little in terms of complete car legality.

[Mike Foschi]

Mike,

That process is way too complicated for me, I can't imagine that if detailed plans or even a sketch on a bar napkin were sent to SCCA for advice or clarification or just to find out if they were in the ballpark that you would get no good info back. Even though at times we are all at each others thoats on here does not mean that MOST of us can not remain friendly, and thus still get good info back from the right people, especially SCCA. Take you and I for example, no matter what you say behind my back that gets back to me I know you still like me.

M. Foschi

P.S. Have I mentioned that you are doing a great job lately?

[R. Pare]

Self "friendly" protests used to get done somewhat often way back in the pre-no-common-sense days, but it was always at the track. For new designs, the Chairman of the CRB used to actually request blueprints or actually go to the factory (sometimes flying to England to do so) to look the cars over before homologation was granted, and many times homologation was refused until the offending design features were fixed. Cars that were deliverd and showed up at the track with the offending design features still intact were denied log books until they were brought into line. Not sure when, but somewhere along the line post-John Grubb, that authority, or at least the practice of it, was relegated to the back burner.

[Purple Frog]

Foschi wrote:

I can't imagine that if detailed plans or even a sketch on a bar napkin were sent to SCCA for advice or clarification or just to find out if they were in the ballpark that you would get no good info back.

Some folks thought they did that last year. I'm guessing they just didn't talk to the "right" people in the SCCA.

Mike,

Janice says I should not post on Saturday night after toasting many times to Brandon, and his crew guy "Mr. Shill". I should always listen to her.
After 4 years I'm starting to get the hang of all you Long Island guys. Ol' man Scarallo, and occasionly Mr. Burke, keep me in training when you aren't around. And... OBTW, you have 'ears' everywhere. I test them every chance I get. Your ears should be burning every couple of weeks.
One of the "highlights" of my short career was at M-O a few years ago. You "protesting" in one ear, and Stimola yelling in the other. I knew i must be doing something right.
You are still a PIA, but a lovable PIA.

[Hardingfv32]

I do not believe there are restrictions to how a car can be modified after homologation. In the case of the side panels being discusses here, they could be added at a later time.

Brian

[R. Pare]

Cars can indeed be modified after homologation, BUT, the modifications still have to be legal.

[Mike Foschi]

My responce in red.

Foschi wrote:

I can't imagine that if detailed plans or even a sketch on a bar napkin were sent to SCCA for advice or clarification or just to find out if they were in the ballpark that you would get no good info back.

Some folks thought they did that last year. I'm guessing they just didn't talk to the "right" people in the SCCA.
Are you insinuating the the SCCA screwed them? If so who? I find it hard to believe that after almost 500 posts Nathen or Camadella didn't say that Billy Joe Bob at SCCA told us that it was all honky dorry after we sent them our plans. I'd have to hear that from some one at SCCA for me to believe it.


Mike,

Janice says I should not post on Saturday night after toasting many times to Brandon, and his crew guy "Mr. Shill". I should always listen to her. I have no idea what that means...toasting Brandon for what ...and who's his Shill? It sounds like you were having one of the series meetings with Johnny Walker, Jim Beam, Jack Daniels and Captain Morgan.
After 4 years I'm starting to get the hang of all you Long Island guys. Ol' man Scarallo, and occasionly Mr. Burke, keep me in training when you aren't around. And... OBTW, you have 'ears' everywhere. I test them every chance I get. Your ears should be burning every couple of weeks.
One of the "highlights" of my short career was at M-O a few years ago. You "protesting" in one ear, and Stimola yelling in the other. I knew i must be doing something right. If Joe and myself were yelling at you at the same time I'm sure it was because something was NOT done right.
You are still a PIA, but a lovable PIA.

[Wren]

I have no idea what that means...toasting Brandon for what ...and who's his Shill? It sounds like you were having one of the series meetings with Johnny Walker, Jim Beam, Jack Daniels and Captain Morgan.

I believe he was toasting Brandon Dixon for winning the FB runoffs. I am "Mr. Shill" although I prefer the title of "Brandon's sidekick."

The "Mr. Shill" thing is a joke from when I was accused of being a shill for Citation since I pointed out what I believe are questionable areas on the Radon and at some point the debate was clouded into a Citation vs. Radon issue, which it never was.