Side panels and other upgrades

[HazelNut]

1. agreed

i'd be interested to see how the costs of FF from the 70s stacks up against its sports car contemporary (say a porsche 911) in terms of price VS the cost of a current FC vs it's sports car contemporary (say a porsche 911). Have race cars gotten cheaper or more expensive VS. a hot street legal sports car. Us ebing racers we're all pretty much into cars in general and most of us probably had some kind of sports car before we got into racing, and some probably had to decide, 911 or go racing in a open wheeler?

2. what exactly is your testing procedure?

is the issue with the stohr vs. your car that the stohr just isn't as well designed? Meaning that it's relative flexibility isn't as a result of an inherent flaw in the hybrid concept, but is an issue inherent to that specific design or perhaps just lee's construction method?

[HazelNut]

BTW i will be silent on this topic cus I'm traveling for the next while. Keep to discussion lively I look forward to tons of new info on the subject.

[jimh3063]

Brian:
The F3 chassis goes through some pretty rigorous testing by the FIA. I'm sure my VD would fail miserably. I think quality and safety of the Dallara shows in the construction. I've asked a lot of questions about fit and finish on things on my VD. I've gotten some pretty funny answers. The best one was why are there 9 and 10 tooth starters and the reply was "it depends on how ****ty the casting for my bellhousing was". I understand that when tubes get bent a little during welding as they heat up and then cool. Some of the chassis are so off there has to be something else wrong. NONE of this exists on the Dallara.


Maybe you haven't been lucky enough to drive a higher end Formula car. Try it and you'll know exactly what I mean.

Jimmy

[jimh3063]

Gents:
I just got this from Elan. The mounting looks shakey at best. I don't know enough about the composite Tegris that it's made of. They're 1800 a pair.

Take a peak. I think I'm about done after this post. I know what I need to do for me.
I FEEL like I'm about done although I have no empirical data to back that statement up.

Jimmy

[S Lathrop]

Brian:
The F3 chassis goes through some pretty rigorous testing by the FIA. I'm sure my VD would fail miserably. I think quality and safety of the Dallara shows in the construction. I've asked a lot of questions about fit and finish on things on my VD. I've gotten some pretty funny answers. The best one was why are there 9 and 10 tooth starters and the reply was "it depends on how ****ty the casting for my bellhousing was". I understand that when tubes get bent a little during welding as they heat up and then cool. Some of the chassis are so off there has to be something else wrong. NONE of this exists on the Dallara.


Maybe you haven't been lucky enough to drive a higher end Formula car. Try it and you'll know exactly what I mean.

Jimmy

I can't speak for your VD but the new RFR chassis passes all the F3 crash tests. I think everyone involved was surprised how well the tube frame car did in the F3 test.

Side penetration was the only test not perfromed. That is the discussion at hand. How do we bring the tube frame up to some standard that makes sence.

The Elan panels look like a good idea. The mounting system should work well. The panel needs to stay put.

[SOseth]

Gents:
I just got this from Elan. The mounting looks shakey at best. I don't know enough about the composite Tegris that it's made of. They're 1800 a pair.

Take a peak. I think I'm about done after this post. I know what I need to do for me.
I FEEL like I'm about done although I have no empirical data to back that statement up.

Jimmy

Jim;

Why do you think the mounting not effective. It seems to me that it would do exactly as intended...hold the panels in place. It would also provide the benefit (in FC / FF terms) of not adding to the structural rigidity of the chassis.

SteveO

[jimh3063]

Jim;

Why do you think the mounting not effective. It seems to me that it would do exactly as intended...hold the panels in place. It would also provide the benefit (in FC / FF terms) of not adding to the structural rigidity of the chassis.

SteveO

Steve:
I would feel (no data to back that up either) better if I wasn't drilling holes in tubes that are going to be used to take an impacts. I liked Dennis idea of welding something to hold them on and not drilling holes if I can avoid it. The brackets look like if they were hit the would break. Brian I have no empirical data to back that up. Just trying to head off a comment at the pass. They look like electrical conduit brackets. I'm sure we could find better brackets than that. I also don't know a whole lot about the composite it is made of, how many layers is it composed of and how much it weighs. I'm sure those questions can be answered.

Jimmy

[racer27]

Steve:
The brackets look like if they were hit the would break.
Jimmy

Not most elegant looking hardware but looks to me most of the impact would be spread out over the surface area of the frame tubing. If the brackets break, I don't see the big deal as long as panels stayed in place.

As allowed today looks like you can have something like this, plus Kelvar in bodywork and a cleaver seat to protect from bone on frame impact.

[R. Pare]

There are a variety of possibly methods to mount these sorts of side panels that do not entail hard bolting, riveting, bonding, etc. The question that remains for each of them is their effectiveness in keeping the panel in place correctly.

Such methods include:

1 - U-straps such as shown in the Elan pictures

2 - Wellnuts into steel taps welded to the sides of the frame rails.

3 - 2 panels similar to what Radon did, except that one is outside the rails, and one inside, bonded to each other, but with a loose fit around the rails.

4 - Exterior panels bolted at the 4 extreme corners, with u-straps or u-bolts at the center of each frame rail ( akin to the British requirements).

5 - Composite U-straps bonded to the outer skin, loosely captivating the frame rails.

Each of these may or may not captivate the panel correctly - we just do not know yet.

Each of these, while allowing the panel to perform to some decent degree, may only give us 20% of the potential of that panel if it were hard bolted at specific intervals. Again, we do not know.

Hopefully, we can somehow get some of these variations tested properly over the course of the winter.

[Peter Gonzalez]

With all this mending the rules, did I hear someone say that bead seats are now illegal The fiberglass seat that my VD came with, can not be that safe

[Wren]

With all this mending the rules, did I hear someone say that bead seats are now illegal

no


btw- no rules were mended. The rules clarification was withdrawn.

[jimh3063]

Richard:
I hope to use these panels or something like them. Are they illegal under the written rules, if they have fasteners closer than six inches?

Are they illegal under the recent extension of the rules by the COA, since they decided you can't have ANY additional cockpit protection unless it's steel or aluminum panels.

Trying to do my research "Look before I leap"

Jimmy

[jimh3063]

Wren:
So the none of this thread matters?

Jimmy

[Wren]

Wren:
So the none of this thread matters?

Jimmy

I can't even follow the leap from me saying that no rules have been meddled with to you asking whether or not the thread matters.

You are just making stuff up now.

[jimh3063]

Wren:
I think Peter meant to say was "amended" because the COA changed the rules from what
is actually written in the GCR. From their opinion:

"The opening paragraph for the FC rules (2010 GCR, page 180) clearly
declares that this is a restricted class and any allowable modifications
must be stated in the rules, and there are no exceptions. 9.1.1. D.7.b
clearly stipulates the materials that may be used for intrusion
protection and carbon fiber is not listed."

Bead seats provide intrusion protection, and they are not listed in the
rules specifically, so they are prohibited.

That also means you can't use any sort of protective seat unless it's
made from steel or aluminum. Am I not getting what was written in an effort to clarify? It seems very specific.

You can't make this **** up!!!

Jimmy

[Wren]

You are just trolling now.

[jimh3063]

Wren:
Not even a little. Just trying to understand whats allowed. I'm not sure why quoting rules is trolling.

If I misquoted something, please point it out and I'll stand corrected.

I would actually appreciate it if John could comment on my last post to this thread as to it's validitity.

Jimmy

[Beartrax]

What if some one poured a bead seat which went all the way up to the top frame rail and had a sheet of Kevlar or carbon fiber buried in the beads?

Some ballistic protection without illegally stiffening the chassis.

Just a wild idea. I will not be hurt if anyone who knows better explains why it will not work.

[Peter Gonzalez]

No, mending is what I said...
But look at this, the opening paragraph for the FC rules (2010 GRC, page 180) clearly declares
that this is a restricted class and any allowable modifications must be stated in the rules, there are no exceptions. 9.1.1.D.7.b clearly stipulates the materials that may be used for intrusion protection, carbon fiber is not listed.
Bead seat material is not listed either. So I guess you can't use anything but aluminum or steel in the cockpit?

Peter

[Jnovak]

When the rules stipulate that no modifications are allowed, this simply does not cover absolutely everything you can think of but only those that are listed. Does this mean that you cannot have a seat in a car because a seat is not listed. Of cours not & it would be silly to think that seats are not allowed because they are not listed.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[jimh3063]

Isn't selective enforcement of gray areas where a lot of this carbon argument started? I agree with Jay on the seat thing. I will say that the wording seems to lead to many potential contradictions though. Wren, thats what I was trying to get across last night. If someone really wanted to go the distance and protest based on the letter of the law, the seat could be deemed illegal.

Jimmy

[Jnovak]

Isn't selective enforcement of gray areas where a lot of this carbon argument started? I agree with Jay on the seat thing. I will say that the wording seems to lead to many potential contradictions though. Wren, thats what I was trying to get across last night. If someone really wanted to go the distance and protest based on the letter of the law, the seat could be deemed illegal.

Jimmy

Let's say for the sake of discussion that your VD was delivered with a seat, any seat or no seat at all. Are you supposed to sit on the frame.

Jimmy, the carbon side panel issue was/is not a grey area st all.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Dennis McCarthy]

So what your are saying Jay that is if an item is not prohibited specifically it is allowed?

[Darrin Teeter]

I can't speak for your VD but the new RFR chassis passes all the F3 crash tests. I think everyone involved was surprised how well the tube frame car did in the F3 test.

Side penetration was the only test not perfromed. That is the discussion at hand. How do we bring the tube frame up to some standard that makes sence.

The Elan panels look like a good idea. The mounting system should work well. The panel needs to stay put.

Steve,
Would you, or anyone else, know whether the RFR was actually crash tested or if the design was validated by analysis. I am having difficulty finding much on the Euro standards that it may, or may not be, certified to. I believe their website says “designed to comply with the FIA crash test requirements for 2009." On another post, someone said that Firman indicated the car “did well’ but did not pass all the tests. I do know that the RXXXX Rn.10 chassis meets the 2009 FIA roll cage standards WITHOUT the cockpit panels installed (per GCR 9.4.5.F).

We had set up a test rig to perform static crush tests (for energy absorption) for the nose cone & tailcone structure. (They were low-cost, very F1-like carbon fiber impact attenuation structures.) We also intended to set up a quasi-static FIA-like side impact test using the tapered cone method. I now have a sufficient pile of scrap to test, but not much motivation to do so

There was also a test plan in place to torsionally test the chassis & some trick methods for revealing any “problem areas” in the panels that may have crept up during initial track testing.

Darrin

[dc]

Some of the inductive reasoning in this thread is beyond mind-boggling.

[S Lathrop]

Steve,
Would you, or anyone else, know whether the RFR was actually crash tested or if the design was validated by analysis. I am having difficulty finding much on the Euro standards that it may, or may not be, certified to. I believe their website says “designed to comply with the FIA crash test requirements for 2009." On another post, someone said that Firman indicated the car “did well’ but did not pass all the tests. I do know that the RXXXX Rn.10 chassis meets the 2009 FIA roll cage standards WITHOUT the cockpit panels installed (per GCR 9.4.5.F).

We had set up a test rig to perform static crush tests (for energy absorption) for the nose cone & tailcone structure. (They were low-cost, very F1-like carbon fiber impact attenuation structures.) We also intended to set up a quasi-static FIA-like side impact test using the tapered cone method. I now have a sufficient pile of scrap to test, but not much motivation to do so

There was also a test plan in place to torsionally test the chassis & some trick methods for revealing any “problem areas” in the panels that may have crept up during initial track testing.

Darrin

It was actually crash tested under FIA supervision. The FIA is actually developing standards for tube frames. This is what I was told in several conversations with Baldwin and Firman.

I did a lot of torsion testing on a frame when I was developing the Z16 FF. That was on a bare frame. It helped a lot as I finalized the design in 1978. More recently I have used FEA modeling (first on the 87 Citation and then extensively on the 94 model). Most helpful has been the testing I do to confirm and monitor a car once it is done. That is a test of the car as raced. And that is the same test I did on the Stohr and the Swift 008.

The interesting thing for me is the high correlation between the FEA analysis of my frames and the test of the finished car. The test is simply setting the car up without shocks and springs. One end is supported on the suspension and other on a pivot point. Then I load one corner of the pivot end with weight and measure the twist of chassis at each axel center line. If you add more measuring points you get a good idea of what a chassis is doing and where you might have a problem.

The 008 Swift was interesting because conventional wisdom proved to be wrong. The car had a bigger problem that most people missed at first. I did not work with the car very long but I understood that Swift had to address the problem I found.

[S Lathrop]

Some of the inductive reasoning in this thread is beyond mind-boggling.

Doug;

If you ciould boil down all the posts and skim off the slag, you might have a good book on race car engineering.

[Beartrax]

Some of the inductive reasoning in this thread is beyond mind-boggling.

Off Season Cabin Fever must be spiking.

[Darrin Teeter]

There are a variety of possibly methods to mount these sorts of side panels that do not entail hard bolting, riveting, bonding, etc. The question that remains for each of them is their effectiveness in keeping the panel in place correctly.

Such methods include:

1 - U-straps such as shown in the Elan pictures

2 - Wellnuts into steel taps welded to the sides of the frame rails.

3 - 2 panels similar to what Radon did, except that one is outside the rails, and one inside, bonded to each other, but with a loose fit around the rails.

4 - Exterior panels bolted at the 4 extreme corners, with u-straps or u-bolts at the center of each frame rail ( akin to the British requirements).

5 - Composite U-straps bonded to the outer skin, loosely captivating the frame rails.

Each of these may or may not captivate the panel correctly - we just do not know yet.

Each of these, while allowing the panel to perform to some decent degree, may only give us 20% of the potential of that panel if it were hard bolted at specific intervals. Again, we do not know.

Hopefully, we can somehow get some of these variations tested properly over the course of the winter.

[FONT=Verdana]If the method has been shown to work in the UK (I can't find any evidence of that), then I would vote for option 4, but I would also leave room for some good ‘ol Yankee ingenuity and see if we could improve it.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]However, if the intent is to eliminate the possibility of stiffening the chassis, then option 4 wouldn't accomplish that. Of course, if you want to completely prevent side panels used for stiffening, you have to eliminate the currently allowed option of attaching steel or aluminum on 6” centers. In the analysis we did for the Radon project we found one with aluminum side panels to be the lightest (not safest) structure of the three we tried.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Changing the 6" rule would make some cars illegal, I assume.[/FONT]

[Daryl DeArman]

It has got to be apparent to more than a few that there are areas where there is just "an accepted practice" whether the rules allow it or not. A fresh set of eyes takes a look at the GCR for what it says and doesn't say....upsets the status quo...panties get bunched.

If it really was that black and white we wouldn't have all these really long threads about the Radon, the Geartronix and wheel "covers". More to the point, the CRB and the COA would have agreed to begin with.

Do we really want to define a seat? Do we want to define how it may be attached? If you (generic) are going to stand behind the "If it doesn't say you can then you can't" type clauses in the rule book then you certainly need to give that some thought.

I'd say make a bead seat the goes from the roll hoop to the front bulkhead. Form the sides out of resin cured spider silk if you wish and then fasten it to every frame rail it comes in contact with 6" on center and declare it a "seat".

[Dick R.]

How about providing impact protection with drivers wearing body armor? Not the bodywork, not the frame, not even the seat. Just the driver's clothing.

Dick
Autocrosser since track racing is too scary for me.
Especially in an 85 FF.

[rperry]

How about providing impact protection with drivers wearing body armor? Not the bodywork, not the frame, not even the seat. Just the driver's clothing.

If his hands are spaced less than 6" on the steering wheel that body armor is "chassis stiffening" and if his hands are more than 6" apart that's "radon chassis stiffening"

[Matt M.]

We throw vest away after 3-4 years, recommend by the manufacture. a 5-6 year old vest let a 45 slug go right thru it.. (not close range) just testing-not being worn,

You told me those things were life vests when we were fishing off Palermo.... And I suppose the turret mount wasn't really for a fishing rod...

Looks to me like there are too many people worried about dying while they race. Next year the Fast Matt Driving Academy is introducing a new course - How to forget about dying and lap 2 seconds faster - 101. We may introduce a 102 class - more advanced type stuff that will include estate planning and choosing the right life insurance policy..

4 conduit clamps from home depot - yea, thats a great idea..... maybe double up the fender washers so its stronger.......

Oh hey Bill - where the hell is annalisa - she's supposed to fly me down to Orlando... I called her cell and the phone on the G6... no answer.... where are you for that matter....

PS - Somebody give me some feedback.....please...... Not Cole though

[Daryl DeArman]

Looks to me like there are too many people worried about dying while they race.

Actually, I prefer to get the car and the gear as safe as possible so I'm not worried about dying while I race

I also favor function over form on the paint job....don't want to worry about a few scratches either.

Both do help with lap times and race craft

[Darrin Teeter]

You told me those things were life vests when we were fishing off Palermo.... And I suppose the turret mount wasn't really for a fishing rod...

Looks to me like there are too many people worried about dying while they race. Next year the Fast Matt Driving Academy is introducing a new course - How to forget about dying and lap 2 seconds faster - 101. We may introduce a 102 class - more advanced type stuff that will include estate planning and choosing the right life insurance policy..

4 conduit clamps from home depot - yea, thats a great idea..... maybe double up the fender washers so its stronger.......

Oh hey Bill - where the hell is annalisa - she's supposed to fly me down to Orlando... I called her cell and the phone on the G6... no answer.... where are you for that matter....

PS - Somebody give me some feedback.....please...... Not Cole though

Lol, I agree Matt! Check please..... I get more concerned about my kid in the seat (unless he's in front of me, which he usually is). He's probably thinking the same thing though.

I think you could make a go of it though. I'll sign up (with carbon/kevlar/Innegra/para-aramid/unobtainium panels intact)!

[Wren]

Wren:
Not even a little. Just trying to understand whats allowed. I'm not sure why quoting rules is trolling.

If I misquoted something, please point it out and I'll stand corrected.

I would actually appreciate it if John could comment on my last post to this thread as to it's validitity.

Jimmy

You made a wild claim that the COA changed the rules, which is not what happened. Plenty of people understood the rule as it was written. The COA just pointed it out. You didn't misquote, you just quoted it and then started making things up.

Then you tried to equate a bead seat to encapsulating the car in carbon panels. Oddly enough, those are not quite the same thing.

So what your are saying Jay that is if an item is not prohibited specifically it is allowed?

More trolling, since that is exactly what Jay didn't say.

[racecr]

Mr teeter you are correct on the Zylon. We new the stuff was no good when we saw were it was made. How fast people forget Pearl Harbor

Every body forgets must and all of the protection panels only get good data when its a stright on impact. we had a G50 Benz wraped in all the good pieces that showed major tears when the projectilel was fired from a angle.

Matt ,she is busy making rum cakes for all the pizano's for Christmas Eve. We found out she has other skills beside running the money machine. We are sitting out Pri this year, We heard Staples has a big sale on bubble wrap.
Who needs panels, it will give cement head something to do on the false grid.Wrap everyone in bubble wrap,, including everyones trap,get out there and race, there was no issues when i ate every tire wall east of mississippi

And Merry Christmas to my favorite Pizanos in New York, I'll call Bloomberg for you to keep the Fire Stations open,( what a nerve) he doesn't have a choice or his mother will have to get her car out of the tow impound daily!! Yes she lives in Medford

Going back to myspace

[Daryl DeArman]

You made a wild claim that the COA changed the rules, which is not what happened. Plenty of people understood the rule as it was written.

Do you really believe everything you type? Or are you just poking folks with a stick?

When the COA overturns a prior ruling they certainly ARE changing the rule. They may or may not change it to mean what most thought it meant to begin with. Overturning it, by definition means for some amount of time, the rule officially meant something else.

[Wren]

Do you really believe everything you type? Or are you just poking folks with a stick?

When the COA overturns a prior ruling they certainly ARE changing the rule. They may or may not change it to mean what most thought it meant to begin with. Overturning it, by definition means for some amount of time, the rule officially meant something else.

There is a difference between a ruling and a rule. They overturned a ruling for a review committee. The COA doesn't make rules, the BOD does that. What rule did they change? Where in the GCR does it give the COA authority to change rules?

[Jnovak]

Do you really believe everything you type? Or are you just poking folks with a stick?

When the COA overturns a prior ruling they certainly ARE changing the rule. They may or may not change it to mean what most thought it meant to begin with. Overturning it, by definition means for some amount of time, the rule officially meant something else.

This rather long posting is to assist with a better understanding of the Compliance Review Process. I think that many of you misunderstand the process. The COA is the FINAL & last step in a process that is used to get a determination of what a rule means.

Here are the simple steps of the Compliance Review Process:

1. A member requests a clarification of a rule. The member defines the problem as the member sees it and pays a $300 fee for the determination
2. The first court makes a determination
3. The Court of Appeals AUTOMATICALLY reviews the determination of the first court.
4. The COA MAKES THE FINAL DETERMINATION.

Before the COA makes it's determination there is nothing completed. It is simply the determination of the 1st court. THERE IS NO FINAL RULING at this point.

After the COA makes their determination the process is OVER & FINAL. This is when the process ends & the ruling of the COA is final.

For example, I filed a request for a ruling about a month before the Runoffs. Here is the text of the letters I received:

(I have deleted a paragraph that defined the specifics of my request)

1st email from SCCA:
[FONT=Calibri]Jay Novak -[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Per your request, a compliance review committee has been established and I have been appointed Chairman. The committee will decide on the issue of compliance/non-compliance of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX and submit our decision to the Court of Appeals.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]Thank you,[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Earl Hurlbut[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Executive Steward[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Northeast Division-SCCA[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]2nd email from SCCA:[/FONT]
Please see the attached the compliance review from the first court. This has been sent to the COA for review.

Thanks!
[FONT=Monotype Corsiva]Janet Farwell[/FONT]
Club Racing Manager
Sports Car Club of America, Inc
6700 SW Topeka Blvd Building 300
PO Box 19400
Topeka Kansas 66619

3rd & final email from SCCA:

Please see the attached COA 10-05-RI final decision.

Thank you,
Janet Farwell
Club Racing Manager
Sports Car Club of America, Inc
6700 SW Topeka Blvd Building 300
PO Box 19400
Topeka Kansas 66619

I have not included the actual attached documents from the 1st court and the COA. However the 1st court & the COA both agreed with my interpretation of the rule. However the process WAS NOT COMPLETE until the COA final decision was made.

Also note that each letter specifically refers to the COA decision. This is ALWAYS the case. I suggest that each of you that has an interest in the rules making process read the section in the GCR as I note that there are several other misunderstandings of the process that have been posted.

it is here in the GCR: 8.1.4. Compliance Review

Sorry for the long post ... Jay Novak