Well hung
I just spent an hour of my life reading this f'ing thread only to find out that the main problem is that certain parts are not "Well hung" Sounds like Nathan's just needs to throw some "Extenze" on the panels and the will become "Well Hung"
Maybe it's true maybe it's not. I just needed to get a chuckle out of the hour I just spent.
Last edited by jimh3063; 10.04.10 at 12:14 PM.
birds eye view
I was lucky enough to see the Radon chassis, body parts and the boatload of extremely trick bits that Nathan has assembled yesterday at the Radon shop. As someone who had owned a Stohr for 6 years, it reminded me of one. It also reminded me that many cars can run in the same class and eventually some smart dude will come a long and build a better mousetrap. I think that's where the Radon is. I was speaking with Nathan it was almost like speaking with Lee Stohr. Both I think are incredibly talented people who have a drive do better than what's currently out there. As a Van Diemen owner, I would think these cars are going to give even the best drivers (me not being one of them) in Van Diemen's a run for their money. It seems like everything is so detail oriented. My car looks like a drunken Limey built it. The Radon looked like each aspect of the car was brainstormed on the from both a functional and maintenance standpoint. Just really well thought out. I hope this is a wake-up call to the rest of the builders out their to start building a better mousetrap.
Well I can now say that "what ever this car cost to purchase, it would be worth it" the Quality of the parts and the attention to detail that is going into this car is by far much greater than the other cars I have seen out there. I will say I have not seen a Stohr up close so I would have to leave that car out. Weather this car is legal or not legal I do not know enough about the rules to make that decision. I can say that over time I think a car builders job is to innovate and make cars safer and go faster, and I can tell you the innovation and the safety parts of this car look to be well taken care of and we will see how the faster part plays out. I mean we are on the track to go faster and race harder.
If I had the money I would be next in line for one just for the innovation and safety
Mark
Mark Filip
Radon
I'm not proclaiming to be a guru on the rules but what I will say is the cockpit protection looked to be on par if not better than the Stohr. There were specific point of entry that are reinforced with a high end CF and from a build standpoint again looked like a Stohr cockpit. I had seen pictures of Jon Hill's crash many moons ago and I think the carbon panels probably went a long way to helping him walk out of it without a scratch. It looked like a tubeframe sausage with not much else left hanging on the body but the cockpit panels and some tubes. Not knocking our class but DSR's are a hell of a lot faster than our cars.
I'm not sure how the whole rule thing will end up but if anyone on the board cares about safety, they need to really take a look at what Nathan has done on an FC. What I saw nothing from a cockpit safety standpoint that could not be retrofitted on a Van Diemen I can't believe anyone on the board would deny any of us being in a safer car. . If they would for personal reasons, they need to be given the boot. I'm still not sure why the initial rules governing direction of the FF and FC cars was dictated by the manufacturers. Isn't that like the tax man dictating tax policy. We are a club that should be providing the guidelines based on safety first and performance second and not let the people who takes the checks from us dictate what the saftey and design parameters should be. I'm a computer engineer and not a car designer but I have stuck my dumbass in enough race cars over the years to know that the Radon is safer than the car I currently drive. It also looks like from an aero standpoint that it is a lot more aero friendly than that the brick I currently drive.
I don't know a lot of the people in FC but the more I look into this whole thing the more it looks like it has the making of a conspiracy novel with a select few on this forum being the stars.
Performance 1st, safety a distant 2nd. This is motor racing. If you are worried so much about safety, find another hobby.
You have to admire how this possible Radon chassis performance issue has/is being painted over with possible safety attributes. Obviously, we need all the safety we can get, safety first and performance improvement a secondary benefit. Well done....
Brian
Safety First
Brian:
I have an extreme desire to be racing when I'm an old guy like a lot of others in the SCCA. If I have an option to drive a very competitive car that is safer than the other cars in my class and I can afford it, why wouldn't I?
As far as racing being dangerous, crossing the frigging street is dangerous. That's doesn't mean I should walk across when cars are coming when I can wait till there isn't.
I have an option to pick the safer route to the same end. I think my thought is the same on the race car as well.
Jimmy
safety
Brian, I was a Parachute Rigger for a bit when I was in the Marines.
They all used to say, you wouldn't pick the parachute with the hole in it if you could pick one without. I look at this as similiar. I moved to fixing helicopters because the are so much safer than fixed wing (not). If the Radon and a new Van Diemen or Firman were the same price, why not get the safer one thats probably going to perform better as well.
Like I mentioned, I'm a computer guy not a car designer but I have driven a **** loads of different cars and currently own a Van Diemen F2000, Wheeler DSR, Speads CSR, Dallara F301 Formula 3, Porsche 930 Porsche 951, Lotus Exige and Subaru STi that are on the track at one time or another. I've also owned a few Radicals, an Indy Lites Lola, both CSR and DSR Stohr, 2003 Van Diemen F2000 and a few assorted other race cars a long the way. If given a chance to make the car safer or faster, I'll take safer first. Can't really race when you're worm farming or being fed gerber baby food through a straw. I also think feeling more comfortable with the car lets you drive quicker as well.
I think I've spouted off enough for one day. Pick your poison and enjoy.
Jimmy
There is simply no question that safety is of paramount importance. I am not against the saftey design siisues that have been designed into the Radon. However there are a couple of very key legality issues WRT the Radon that MUST be resolved.
Let's forget for a moment about the lagality of the carbon panels. These panels as designed may provide a safety improvement. Let's assume that they do & that carbon panels are approved by a clarification of the rules. (they could also be made out of other materials if the carbon currently in use is not approved.
My major concern is Nathan's interpretation of the "bottom of the car" rules. Nathan is convinced that the belly pan of the chassis can be at a significantly different angle than the rest of the bottom of the car, specifically the bottom of the body (side pods).
Now perhaps many of you have not thought of the very significant implications of this interpretation. I suggest that you do so.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
Tunnel.
Tunnels
As someone who lived through the whole DSR tunnel evolution, I would say this doesn't look like a tunnel. As someone who has actually seen the parts, I may be at an advantage in understanding what it actually looks like. From what I was told, if the cars are deemed legal, they'll be at the turkey trot at sebring. Maybe people could actually see it before they come to ANY conclusion. You know ACTUALLY look at it before deeming it Satan. As someone who has ACTUALLY seen it, I would recommend you look at my Dallara F301. It looks a lot like it. I mean a lot. I'm not involved with Radon nor do I know Nathan very well. I was over Glen's Phillips shop dropping off some stuff and was invited to go see what Nathan was up too. I was pretty impressed with what I saw.
I think the announcement on the legality of the car is due out at the end of the month.
I'm sure that if it is deemed legal, there will be pictures posted. Nathan is selling these things and I assume would want as many people to see the car as possible.
Again, thought it was pretty cool and I think most of the people who run an FC will as well as well. The only people who will hate it are people who make cars based old technology. I would think then you will either be very pissed or go and make your car as good as the Radon. Nathan doesn't have a lock on Brain Matter.
I would add that nothing I saw was so far ahead that Firman or one of the other car makers couldn't do as good of a car or better. They just actually have to go ahead and do it. I would think the first year out the Radon will do very well and then the others will start upping their game and making add on's and new cars that are on par with it or become CFC's. It's called Evolution folks. If it didn't exists, you'd be a friggin monkey!!!!!
Jimmy
Originally Posted by jimh3063
Great now we get the debate the theory of evolution
then
There are cleary "missing links" between the older cars and the radon, therefore this must be creation by intelligent design lol
Tunnel.
How so?
Wouldn't it be funny if the car actually made it to the track one day and was a pig. All this over something so few have had the privilege of seeing and it hasn't turned a wheel yet.
I guess it is the end of the season now, so maybe the debate over a non-existing car can really heat up.
dud
I agree, it could be a huge bomb. Look at all the free advertising Radon has gotten. You couldn't buy this type of hype. The funny part of it is the people who was making all the hype are people involved with the other manufacturers. They are probably hurting themselves the most by generating this much controversy. This reminds of the phrase "Circular Firing Squad"
Jimmy from Easton, what do you do for a living.
Seeing the list of cars you have owned, I need to change professions.
If you allow a "floorpan" that is not parallel to the ground, and is not the lowest point of the chassis, with vertical sides on the edges, you are creating ground effects tunnels. Nathan may have not used this to it's fullest advantage, but someone will if deemed legal.
It is a existing car.
Mark
Mark Filip
A Living
Steve, I'm a gynocologist.
I think peoples' concerns are not so much about this model (although it might be a step up), as much as it could open the door to many various designs that may not look (or perform) very much like traditional FC designs.
I don't know if this is a good analogy, but it might be like how designers in the past used non-traditional interpretations to find loopholes that allowed sucker cars (powered by cooling fans), skirts, wings mounted on suspension, etc.
Russ, I think you have it correct. The true question is whether the membership wants to see a change in the direction of the design and build of FF/FC cars. Given the significant steps taken to insure that older engines were not relegated uncompetitive in these classes one has to question as to how "liberal" the chassis rules should or should not be interpreted. This is not an issue of the legality of a single car, but rather one that goes to a "diametric change in the DNA of FF/FC car construction". (quoting a former FC National Champion)
FWIW, note that there is no limitation on the number of engines permitted...
How is it done on track?
Jim,
I hope that you are better at your job than you are at spelling
Are you sure you are not a proctologist since you seem to be stuck on Radon is great???
Does not have to be on track to exist.
Mark Filip
New cars
John:
I ran one pro race this year at Lime Rock. I ran a Fc for a bit in 2003. Almost all the same cars were there 7 years will later. Eventually these cars are not going viable.
What do you suggest, keep making cars that are the same for 10 years at a whack. I have a 2000 Vd which from 1999-current I'm almost sure has had little change unless you count the Zetec motor change. If this is the path we are all heading, let's just kill off the citations (16 or so) pipers (don't know maybe (5) and just have Van Diemens which make up the majority of the FC class and just have Spec Continental!!!! The only way the class will prosper is to allow innovation. We need to move the class forward. The membership was ok with limiting the Zetec output to allow it to be the motor moving forward for the class. I'm sure this issue can be resolved without making older designs forever.
John, you contacted me via the survey. Was there a count of up or down on the aspects of the Radon that are causing the controversy?
This is a club. Let the car come out and see how it does. If it is a game changer, work on parity measures for a few years to allow the other manufacturers to catch up. Killing anything that makes some of the cars "Not front runners" is a receipe for killing the class.
Is it me or are most of the people making a stink about this have the Citation logo at their avatar?
Last edited by jimh3063; 10.17.10 at 9:06 PM.
Steve
Steve, are you sure your not a proctologist. Your acting like an *******
The problem is going to be when someone who has experience and knows what they are doing builds a car to the new rules that will be required to allow the Radon.
No. That has been the way that some people have tried to phrase the debate to try to question people's motivations for pointing out how illegal the car is.
Radon is great
Steve, I'm not stuck on Radon is great as much as I'm getting to see how much this whole controversy seems to be being ginned up by a certain group of people who are aligned with another manufacturer.
If being stuck on something that I think has a lot of potential, is innovative, could attract more people to the class, and is safer than what I currently drive then I am stuck on Radon then.
You don't have to agree or like what I say but you don't have to be an asssole.
I think you should go **** yourself if you cannot allow me to express my thoughts on a public forum. I am an owner of an Fc and a member in good standing in the SCCA where these cars run. Am I only allowed to post things that you agree with. I would hope I can at least speak my peace. What I've stated is my opinion, nothing else. Your entitled to yours as well.
There are a bunch of posts in here that point out how that really is not true. Repeating it will not make it true.
What did you think it the car.
Wren, (As a matter of fact anyone) so when you saw the chassis, parts, drawings ,etc, what did you think of it?
I have not seen those things. Maybe when I get to see the complete car, there will be more things as blatently illegal as the panels. I guess we won't know until the time comes.
Ok, that's enough.
First, you couldn't be more wrong with your first comment. Plain and simple, wrong. It is wholly untrue. Period.
Second, your behavior here is completely out of bounds. In case you haven't been paying attention since you registered in 2005, we do not allow name calling, flame-baiting and the kind of behavior you are displaying in your last post. I have deleted accounts and banned IPs for similar actions, sir.
Forgive the skepticism here, as this thread had virtually died before you cam back making hefty claims about a car that by most accounts, isn't even a roller yet, and not even close to it. Your previous posts have come off as some sort of shill, which to many people looked suspicious, at best.
Bring it down a few notches, have a cold one, and relax. We're all friends here (mostly
First warning, last warning.
Panrld
Wren, is it not true that crash structures are allowed to be of carbon?
WTF
Doug, thanks for the impartiality.
====================================
Jim,
I hope that you are better at your job than you are at spelling
Are you sure you are not a proctologist since you seem to be stuck on Radon is great???
=====================================
Good thing name calling and insulting are off limits. Or maybe just for me.
Jim, I think you have sunk to a new low,but to attempt to answer your questions
First one can develop cars within the parameter of the rules as they exist. Whether the Radon falls within those parameters has yet to be determined. If the membership is unhappy with those parameters then they need to be changed.
Second, there is nothing before any Board that I am aware of which addresses the legality of the Radon.
Finally, read the GCR and the FF/FC rules for yourself and then ask questions.
John
Telling someone "to go **** themselves" was way out of bounds. Keep pushing me and you'll find yourself on the outside looking in.
Memory
John I remember you speaking with me the other day trying to convince me the carbon would shatter if hit without actually seeing it or knowing that the Stohr have a very similar construction of the cockpit. Do you remember me sending you the picture of the Stohr or even having that conversation?
Last edited by jimh3063; 10.18.10 at 9:18 AM.
Front and rear crush structures are specifically allowed to be made out of carbon, no question about that. Front crush structures have a lot of good rules about how they may be made(layers, minimum frontal area, attachment, etc.), that keep people making good crush structures but prevent someone from making an all carbon nose. The rear crush structure rules could probably use some cleaning up.
Other things are allowed to be made of carbon also when specifically allowed (radiator ducting, etc.). Carbon interior panels are even allowed to be made of carbon. Those panels are either part of the frame or they are bodywork (see latest fastrack for what will be considered bodywork), but they are not interior panels. My opinion is that they are part of the frame, especially since Radon chose to use the frame rules to decide how to attach them (6" centers). Carbon is not allowed in either bodywork or the frame which are the only two options for what they are.
So far we have heard a lot of explanations of what these panels are to try to force them to fit into the GCR. Is the latest explanation that they are crush structures?
Panels
Wren I saw the panels in question friday. They are interior panels. I've blown my load for the evening. I'm convinced I had a complete dilusion last friday. I wasn't at Radon. I wasn't looking at all the parts in question. I was on magic mushrooms. Sorry vocalizing my halucination.
There are currently 38 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 38 guests)
Posting Permissions
