Stan:Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
The investment in Enterprises may be making a decent return on the principal that is on the books now but it does not account for the write down of those same loans to "subsidiaries" taken late '80s.
Stan:
The investment in Enterprises may be making a decent return on the principal that is on the books now but it does not account for the write down of those same loans to "subsidiaries" taken late '80s.
Wow. That might be one of the most bigoted and misinformed things I have ever read on this forum.
I never knew that I wasn't a racer. I never knew the time I spend all winter prepping my car, working on suspension models, testing, working meant that I wasn't a real racer. I guess my Runoff Podiums in another class were misguided attempts at not being a real racer.
Had I know that I was only interested in being part of car club, I could have saved so much time...
Give me a break. Take your remorse for someone else developing a good class that is competive and economical somewhere else.
I agree with Stan. This discussion wasn't about FE. Joe just tried to clear up a misunderstanding.
Apparently many people are not ready to give up their beliefs.
Unsubscribing from what was an interesting thread.
(I am starting to see how you feel, Nathan!)
jim
Almost time for a Rodney King moment "Can't we all just get along?"
Actually .... not
Thanks ... Jay
Jim;
Your reaction proves my point. We don't speak the same language. Notice that I did not say that I was right. I did not say that spec racing was not valid. And I did not say that spec racing was not racing. In fact spec racing may be closer to "club" racing than any other type of racing.
The point is that you and I use the language of racing differently. Differently to the point of not easily understanding each other. I, Don (Piper) and Nathan have no place in spec racing.
Sorry, I did throw the bait out there.
Alright. One last comment.
It is not different language.
I couldn't find any FC or FF that I could fit in. I don't have any particular interest in spec racing. I just happen to have found a formula car other than and F500 that I fit in at 6'4" and can be close to minimum weight at 235lbs plus drivers gear weight.
Broad brush strokes don't always make great art nor statement.
Build me a car that can be competitive at $30k or less at those dimensions and I am onboard.
Sorry for the rant.
I do think these proposed rules are unattractive.
Back to your regularly scheduled complaints at the beginning of this thread.
Jim
Am I lost? How do these last 15 or 20 posts fit in with the 1st one?
"I love the smell of race fuel in the morning. It smells like victory!"
Barry Wilcock
Pit Crew: Tumenas Motorsports/Houndspeed, Fat Boy Racing
This thread has gotten testy at times, but reading it again I see some consensus. To summarize my position:
- The existing rules are well written and have stood the test of time since 1986. They may need minor tweaks, but a wholesale overall isn't necessary.
- Changing the rules just to make one model of car illegal is a bad idea.
- Updating the side protection rules to specifically allow (and limit) composite side panels would codify the decisions of the CoA on the Radon design and clarify construction options for new cars. I suggested exact language earlier.
- Requiring that all new FF/FC cars meet the FIA standards in the "alternate design" section of the GCR roll cage requirements would substantially improve rollover safety and preserve full tube frame construction for FF/FC.
I don't see any need for a constructor's meeting like happened in 1985, but involving all active constructors in an email discussion does make sense.
Nathan
Jim;
Tom Schweitz is close to your size and his Citation is very close to the minimum weight.
My opinions about spec cars are not fair but this is racing. I have advised some people to get into spec cars because they do fit an important niche in racing. In a healthy club racing program, I think both spec and "development" classes are desirable.
I have over 25 years as a race engineer in Indy Lights and FA. My experience has shown me that drivers who have only driven spec cars ( vs. development cars FF and FC as examples) are lacking setup skills that are necessary to be successful at the top levels of racing. This does not mean that there are not really good drivers graduating from these spec car programs. It does mean that they will get caught out at the top levels if they are lacking in setup skills.
It is my belief that FC, FF and now FB are such important classes in the development of drivers who can succeed at the top level of open wheel racing, that I spend so much effort and passion on these classes. It is also the training ground for mechanics and engineers as well. I'm too old to drive as competitively as I once did. So this is the way that I, Nathan and a bunch of others participate in racing, making those who can as fast as they can be.
Look at the entertainment that the development classes bring to the net.
How many VD's, Citations and Pipers have been upside down where we can come to the conclusion that what we currently have is a problem? I have seen the photos from the F2000 events where side impact protection may need to be upgraded but nothing of roll over. I am not looking for engineer figures either, do we have actual physical evidence that what we have is inadequate?
-Nick
That's a very valid point. However, I don't want to be the one to find out!
I don't think there is a problem. But I do think that the current roll bar rules could be revised. One of my 94 Citations has been on its roll bar 3 times with no damage. I have had three earlier models that had very severe impacts on the roll bars and one had a partial failure.
One feature of all the roll bars is that the initial failure point may be below the driver's head. The engineering analysis that is required for roll bars if they are not built exactly to SCCA specs will show that point. The Ralt RT40/41 had a roll bar structure that would progressively fail from the top downward. The strength of the structure increases significantly as you get closer to the drivers head. It is my understanding that SCCA does not allow this structure for Ralts that are converted to classes other than FA.
The one failure of a roll bar on my cars, was just even with the driver's head and the roll bar structure up to the failure point remained in place. It was that experience that led me to the double hoop roll bar design. My current design can be changed to meet SCCA standards by replacing the double hoop with a single hoop and 2 braces. But that is what failed. The failed hoop sheared off at the point where the braces were attached to the hoop. The roll bar was braced front and rear at the same point on the main hoop. How many cars are built that way?
Most designers are building roll bars that are way better than the minimum requires. As Nathan pointed out, the SCCA requirements are not much and I doubt that what is legal by the rules will meet the minimum standards described in the GCR for alternative structures.
I agree 100%
The "standard" design in the GCR is legal without any engineering analysis. A single main hoop of 1-3/8 OD x .083 wall tubing supported by braces six inches below the top is allowable. It must have a minimum bend radius of 4-1/8 inch.
You are also permitted a different approach under the "alternate design" section, but it requires analysis by a Professional Engineer certifying it will withstand loading of 1800 pounds laterally, 6600 pounds fore and aft, and 9000 pounds vertically (for FC cars with a minimum weight of 1200 pounds). This is based on an earlier FIA standard for roll hoops. The 2010 F3 standard (the one the Rn.10 frame was designed to) is 3000 pounds laterally, 11000 pounds fore/aft, and 14800 pounds vertically.
The standard design using the minimum 1-3/8 tubing will fail at the braces six inches below the top at about 1600 pounds of fore/aft load (it depends somewhat on the geometry) or about 1/4 of the load required under the alternate design criteria. This is the failure that Steve experienced on his earlier single roll hoop design. The vertical and lateral loads are usually less of an issue.
There is a reason the FIA requires a roll hoop meet those specific loadings, and it is based on analysis of actual accidents. I'm not suggesting older cars be updated, but it seems we could require new cars to meet at least the older FIA standard currently in the GCR. That amount of force requires the loads be fed from the main roll hoop through bracing and structure to the rest of the cage, which would ensure a substantial tube frame.
I believe the Citation roll hoop was homologated under the alternate design criteria, which means it will meet the older FIA standard without modification. It is impossible to know for sure without analysis, but I suspect it would also meet the F3 standards.
Cars imported from England or France usually have their designs homologated directly by the FIA, which means they meet a more modern FIA standard than the one in the GCR.
I do not like the idea of providing another obstacle to those building their own formula cars, but having a PE sign off on a design is not expensive. I would volunteer to assist anyone in that situation with their design, and I'm sure Steve would be glad to help as well.
Nathan
Maybe so, Steve, but IMO the investment has been a good one for the Club, considering that some 850+ Spec Racers have been sold, along with 120+ FEs. You're an accountant, so let's look at the numbers:
850+ SRFs sold at ~$20,000 each: $17,000,000
99,400 "SRF-Surcharge" fees paid to SCCA: $994,000
Spare parts, spec tires and engine rebuilds: million$ more
So those SRFs that you hate so much have contributed at least $25-million dollars to SCCA Corporate over the years, not even counting all the entry fees paid to Regions over the same time frame:
99,400 entry fees paid to Regions @ ~$200 each: $20,000,000
I'd call $40-million to $50-million dollars added revenues a pretty good ROI on a couple of million investment.
And that doesn't count the 120+ FEs sold since 2003:
120+ FEs sold at ~$35,000 each: (I could go on, but I'm confident you get the point.)
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Gross is one thing and net is anotherMaybe so, Steve, but IMO the investment has been a good one for the Club, considering that some 850+ Spec Racers have been sold, along with 120+ FEs. You're an accountant, so let's look at the numbers:
850+ SRFs sold at ~$20,000 each: $17,000,000
99,400 "SRF-Surcharge" fees paid to SCCA: $994,000
Spare parts, spec tires and engine rebuilds: million$ more
So those SRFs that you hate so much have contributed at least $25-million dollars to SCCA Corporate over the years, not even counting all the entry fees paid to Regions over the same time frame:
99,400 entry fees paid to Regions @ ~$200 each: $20,000,000
I'd call $40-million to $50-million dollars added revenues a pretty good ROI on a couple of million investment.
And that doesn't count the 120+ FEs sold since 2003:
120+ FEs sold at ~$35,000 each: (I could go on, but I'm confident you get the point.)
Stonebridge Sports & Classics ltd
15 Great Pasture Rd Danbury, CT. 06810 (203) 744-1120
www.cryosciencetechnologies.com
Cryogenic Processing · REM-ISF Processing · Race Prep & Driver Development
Enterprises has been profitable for most of its existence...it's Pro that hemorrhaged money year after year. Steve and I have been debating Enterprises for more than a decade, and his point has always been that SCCA poured money into it inappropriately (hurting FF sales), while my position has been that it has been very good for the Club.Gross is one thing and net is another
Disclaimer: I have never even sat in either Enterprises car, let alone owned or driven one, and have no financial relationship with Enterprises.
Cheers! Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Those numbers would be like if I said I started a business 10 years ago with an initial investment of $5MM, and since then, I have had sales revenues of $250MM; therefore, I have realized a juicy ROI. Maybe so, but then again maybe I sold $46B worth of goods for $250MM.
Your objection would make sense if that were the case, but since it isn't, it doesn't.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
My objection was solely to your numbers as a justification for profitability. I was not saying they were accurate numbers or that Enterprises is not profitable. In other words, if you would like to use accounting to show they are profitable, you need to account for all the dollars, not just some of them. That's all.
Another point I need to make (to try to edge this thread back on-topic) is that hating on other classes, or denigrating their drivers, is not going to solve FC's current and on-going challenge. When FC brought in the F-2000 package, it was all there was between FF at the lower end and FA at the upper end. As a consequence FC grew strongly until competition for the middle-road started in the late 90's. The decline of FC as a class started well before the recent run-up in the cost of racing one started. It started with the introduction of a new national class that competed directly with FC for drivers, money and talent. Yes, FM existed before 1998, but it was the red-headed step-child of Formula Atlantic through the 1997 season, and only became its own SCCA National class the following year.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying that FM, and later on FE and FB, stole drivers on a one-to-one basis from FC. They didn't. That said, while at (IIRC) the 2007 SCCA Convention Erik Skirmants told me that 40% of buyers of the first 50 FEs came from FC, so there is certainly a link there. In any case, it is also clear that there is an on-going market for about 1000 National entries a year in the winged tube-frame classes. Different drivers want different things, of course, and so we now have four of those classes.
Some might argue that the Club should have refused to admit more classes, but that would have had about as much success as Henry Ford did by insisting that you could have your Model T in any color you wanted, so long as it was black. One year Chevrolet offered four other colors in addition to black, and it was game-over.
Point being that the Club sometimes has to offer choices to stay in the game, which brings us back to FC. It should be clear from the graph below that FC has a challenge on its hands. For years I have tried to get the FC community to look ahead and proactively adopt strategies that keep it competitive, but so far without much success.
Yes, the Zetec was brought in, but only over the screaming bloody murder objections of the Pinto guys about how it was going to destroy the class. That was a success IMO. Counterbalancing that was the shoot-down of the MZR engine, and now the effort to roll the clock back by retroactively changing the rules to stifle innovation within a rule set that has been in place for a quarter century. All the while FC numbers continue to slide.
If that's what FC wants, so be it. I'm not going to fall on my sword over it. Just understand that there might be a better way forward.
Last edited by Stan Clayton; 09.18.13 at 7:55 AM.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Your off topic now
Maybe you guys should start another thread for your car class debate but it is not relevant to the original post.
Yeah! Screw those other guys. They are FAKE!! Who would even drive one of those.....
Wait... What?
I'll go back to lurking now.
Driver FE #68
Driver Piper FB #88
Stan,
The FC numbers are biased. As I've been saying for a long time, SCCA needs to count SCCA Pro entries with SCCA National entries. The declining trend in FC numbers has a very high correlation with the F2KCS.
And, better yet, SCCA should count ALL entires - Pro, National, and Regional for all current National classes. That is the far better picture.
I don't have access to all those numbers, Rob, but I agree that we'd have a better picture with them.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
To offer any fair count SCCA should count all cars in any event they sanction. What kind of idiot would do otherwise? Whoops I'm slipping into the spirit of the thread. I've owned CF,FC, and FE. My preference is FC despite the fact that my car is outdated and unsafe.
Jim, you left out "self proclaimed cheater" in the description of your now-nuetered FC car.
If I might interject. I have been "cheating" since 2001. Never been protested. Theoretical design debates aside why not bring the new car to competition and let the protests begin. Huge sums have been spent on design and construction. Get off the web and on the track to get a real determination. What is the intended launcing point of the Radon, which is the epicenter of this nonsense. You guys in the NorthEast have always been preoccuipied with "preload". To quote the F1 guy "Get on with It"
OK, now that we woke up Cap't Morgan, back to the original thread.
Anybody have a good argument (either based on engineering or safety) why the bottom of the chassis, if it is two inches more or less above the bottom of the car (the Declared Reference Plane), needs to be parallel to the bottom of the car?
Still curious about that.
Or... why do brackets need to be metal? What is wrong with plastic, CF, or whatever brackets?
What, Like this......??!!OK, now that we woke up Cap't Morgan, back to the original thread.
Anybody have a good argument (either based on engineering or safety) why the bottom of the chassis, if it is two inches more or less above the bottom of the car (the Declared Reference Plane), needs to be parallel to the bottom of the car?
Still curious about that.
Or... why do brackets need to be metal? What is wrong with plastic, CF, or whatever brackets?
Williams Racing Developments Inc
704 658 0940 www.willrace.com
WE HAVE MOVED...... 503 Performance Road, Mooresville, NC, 28115
Lee, I would say that is illegal using the current GCR for FC. Has an open gap that doesn't cool rads, motor, nor driver.
But it does 'shadow' well.
Thats not bodywork, its a floorstay!
I know thats a lame argument right now, because in the F1 2011 regs bodywork is described as "All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air stream, except cameras, camera
housings and the parts definitely associated with the mechanical functioning of the engine, transmission
and running gear. Airboxes, radiators and engine exhausts are considered to be part of the bodywork."
In 1992 though, that probably wasnt the rule, I cant really be bothered to look it up right now, things move on though, otherwise we'd all be rocking some kind of Formula Junior like my grandad raced.
In terms of the raised nose, Mclaren refused to do one after Tyrrell started the whole thing, until they understood it, and it took a while to catch on. Williams, Mclaren, Ferrari all used low noses for a few years until they made the switch, things are different now, everybody has one, but they started under a set of rules that didnt specify them, until someone figured it out.
I LOVE racing, always have, always will, and I hope to be involved for a good time, and i feel lucky to have lived through some of the best advancements in the sport. I just hope that everyone can figure this out and allow a progression in this great class, however it is done.
Last edited by WRD; 08.18.11 at 11:34 PM.
Williams Racing Developments Inc
704 658 0940 www.willrace.com
WE HAVE MOVED...... 503 Performance Road, Mooresville, NC, 28115
Where have you been, Jim? We launched the car six weeks ago! It ran at NHMS and the Mosport pro race and we've been testing quite a bit. We're building new cars as fast as we can. Should have several cars at Lime Rock and more at Watkins Glen, and plan to do some club events this fall as well.
Assuming they don't change the rules, we'll be down in your neck of the woods with a bunch of cars for the Winter Nationals in January. Maybe we should get Cole to jump in one and see what it can do at Sebring.
Nathan
Who drove it at Mosport?
Also, will there be a Radon at the Runoffs?
Last edited by BWC54; 08.19.11 at 11:14 AM.
Crossle 32F, Piper DF5 Honda
How many Radon's have been sold now? Was it 7 or 9 I read some where in this post? How many new FC cars usually sold in the US per year by all manufcatures on average? Seems like a lot of interest & good reviews for a car that has only done a few events so far & would obviously be just getting sorted out.
It would be a shame to ban a car that will potentially bring the numbers up in the class/series. I am sure others will say that is an incorrect statement as they will feel their cars are now outdated by the Radon.
If the new rule is adopted is there no way to modify the cars to make them legal, I think I saw some where here it would need a whole redesign.
Well said
Art, well said.
Thank you.
Our development driver, Matt McDonough. He qualified P6 (out of 21 cars) in both qualifying sessions, but started at the back for the races since we were using the weekend as a test session.
No. We have a pro race at Lime Rock on September 16-17, and all of our initial customers focus on the pro series rather than club racing.Also, will there be a Radon at the Runoffs?
Nathan
Nathan,
I look forward to seeing the car in person. I was alluding to a less friendly environment than The F2000 series. I can't speak for him but I'm sure Cole won't mind resetting his record at Sebring in a Radon.
These open gaps don't fulfill those requirements.Lee, I would say that is illegal using the current GCR for FC. Has an open gap that doesn't cool rads, motor, nor driver.
But it does 'shadow' well.
Chris Livengood, enjoying underpriced ferrous whizzy bits that I hacked out in my tool shed since 1999.
Actually, the language in the GCR is:
An opening has to have a complete perimeter (open from somewhere to somewhere else). The original RFR with two struts supporting the floorpan shown above probably met that definition, which is (I assume) why they changed it to a single strut. The Radon doesn't have any openings in the bodywork other than for engine cooling.D.8.c. There shall be no forward facing gaps or openings in the bodywork with the exception of those necessary for engine cooling, engine air inlet, shock, or brake cooling.
If you interpret a "gap" to be any concave surface on the bodywork, or where the bodywork has a space between a lower and an upper surface, then every FC car I've ever seen (including your Van Diemen!) is illegal.
A lot of cars have cable stays or struts supporting the diffuser or sidepod floors. Technically, they form "openings in the bodywork," so we avoided using them just to be safe.
Nathan
There are currently 13 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 13 guests)
Posting Permissions
