FC/ FF rules passed 12 / 0

[a. pettipas]

Well, pedant comes from the Greek "ped," meaning child, and "ant," meaning a small social insect. Ergo, logic dictates that a pedant is a form of juvenile insect belonging to the Formicidae family. We all know ants are exceedingly strong, but I doubt you will find one composed of more than 50% iron, so one must conclude that pedants are both non-ferrous and not ferrous. I would elaborate further, but I'm sure you'd agree that to do so would be rather didactic. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Oh, you!

[Daryl DeArman]

Rather, I find fault with the SCCA process and their writing style that seems particularly messy in the FF/FC rules. It is far messier than the other class rules with too many references and reliances on "clarifications" that have occurred in the past but never become written in the rules.

When something like this is clarified by the SCCA, the rule book should be clarified. If it were not for the internet record this thread creates, those that were not part of the original discussion would never know that this interpretation of put into stone on the mountain high.

I have run into this before in another class where something I built was legal by my reading of the rules, but others felt it was not based on a protest held ten years prior to me ever being in the SCCA. Nothing was ever put into the rule book or was published regarding the finding so others could know about it that were not there.

Yes, it's a messy beast. I feel that the waters are further muddied when the rule section says loosely translated: "all authorized modifications/allowances are stated herein, if it doesn't say you can you can't" and then it goes on to list something you can't do.

Another point, once the new GCR is published all prior additions and amendments carry zero official weight. Doesn't mean that somebody might make a quick correction as an "error & omission"

[R. Pare]

This is actually getting pretty boring. Way to much focus on the word "ferrous" and not enough focus on the prohibition of carbon fiber.

Jay Novak

One other rule that everyone overlooks is 9.3.36, wherein it states that non-metallic chassis construction is not allowed except in specific, listed, classes, with FF, FC, and FB being among those not listed.

That prohibition would cover non-metallic construction in whole as well as in part - eg - a CF panel used to add structure to an otherwise primarily tube chassis would be "in part", and would be illegal, as well as any components that are described and controlled by the "chassis" rule subset.

The only way around this general GCR prohibition is if the class-specific rules over-ride it and states specifically that CF would be allowed for chassis or chassis component construction. In the case of the "non-ferrous" bracket rule, it is part of the chassis rule set, and within that rule set, nowhere is CF stated as being allowed - if fact, CF is specifically stated as being disallowed.

[Wren]

To be clear, I am actually fully in agreement that carbon is not to be used here and that I am not being difficult. Rather, I find fault with the SCCA process and their writing style that seems particularly messy in the FF/FC rules. It is far messier than the other class rules with too many references and reliances on "clarifications" that have occurred in the past but never become written in the rules.

When something like this is clarified by the SCCA, the rule book should be clarified. If it were not for the internet record this thread creates, those that were not part of the original discussion would never know that this interpretation of put into stone on the mountain high.

I certainly understand your point. I know that the reason for not changing the rules to clarify things is because of the desire to protect someone's design and not make them have to share their ideas with other people.

Maybe there is some kind of middle ground, but I don't know what it is. I know that when someone sent in a compliance review for the Radon guys in the past, the answer to that was added to the GCR. I would be completely ok with anything from my compliance review making it in to the GCR, except for the fact that my ruling is for the 2012 GCR. It is certainly encouraging that the 2013 rules rewrite did clean up a lot of the confusion from older GCR versions while not making any current cars illegal.

Perhaps an online rule book addendum? A publication of all compliance rulings over time as a a point of clarification or reference?

I have wondered about similar things in the past. Maybe at least having the CRB use their power for errors and omissions to clean up the rules whenever a situation like this comes up to make the rules better while not changing the rules themselves. I doubt there are enough technical protests and self protests that go on that this would seriously add to their workload.

Another point, once the new GCR is published all prior additions and amendments carry zero official weight. Doesn't mean that somebody might make a quick correction as an "error & omission"

Excellent point. While I am pretty sure that the Radon guys never filed self protests to cover any of the questions that I have asked, I wonder if they bothered to renew them in 2011 and 2012. Yes, I know they asked about panels, but they didn't ask the right questions regarding the right parts of the rules, so they are pretty meaningless. The ruling on double hoop construction was interesting, although unsurprising. The stewards and COA pretty much begged Radon to get a ruling on that in 2010.

One other rule that everyone overlooks is 9.3.36, wherein it states that non-metallic chassis construction is not allowed except in specific, listed, classes, with FF, FC, and FB being among those not listed.

Richard, excellent point. It is also noteworthy that the SCCA is consistent in their use of engineering industry standard terminology with respect to composites.

If illegal in SCCA club does rule 20 come into play for F2KCS?

I'm curious as well, I can only guess. Despite claims to the contrary, I really, really don't care what the F2000 series does. That is their show and entirely their decision on which rules apply to which people. My concern is the club and I am not thrilled with the rule change there to have different rules different people.

Steve, I believe Frog already said that when we wrote the rules for 2013 pro series everything legal in 2012 would be legal in 2013 so the Radon will still have a place to race regardless.

Everything legal in 2012 or everything allowed to run in 2012? There is a pretty big difference. I checked the F2000 website and I still don't see any indications of what the rules will actually be. That makes filing a protest pretty hard, although even I am not that stupid.

While I don't care what the F2000 series does with the Radon, there were questions in my compliance review that affect cars at the front of the field also. I know that I have discussed the diffuser issue with the F2000 tech inspector and he agreed that they were not legal, but they still ran last year. That is a very real advantage and clearly illegal.

[KevinFirlein]

Wren bottom line is that when frog and I talked he indicated that if its been allowed in the series, which has been successful and full of very happy competitors since it started in 2006, it was gonna run in 2013. I havent tlaked to him in a while so I dont know if something has changed.

[Wren]

Kevin,

I made my opinion of the F2000 series management clear in post #52 of this thread and I have said multiple times throughout this thread that I understand that they can do whatever they want with their series. I do not expect this to affect the quality or popularity of their racing. I can't wait.
The reason I am so annoyed at Jon Lewis and the whole F1000 pro series is because if not for that we might not have wasted 2012 in F1000. The race results from 2012 were ok, but it is still just another year of FC development we can't get back.

Now for personal opinion time. It annoys me that what was allowed would be portrayed as what was legal. Big difference. I think there are very few serious efforts that are trying to move back and forth between the club and pro, but it certainly makes things harder for them. It is harder for manufacturers as well to do things like design, tool, and manufactur multiple diffusers.
I don't like to see the F2000 series continue to move away from the club spec. I don't think it does either any good. I think history supports that and other things about series/team relationships.
As always, you will have to look long and hard to find something less important than my opinion.

[Lotus7]

...I don't like to see the F2000 series continue to move away from the club spec. I don't think it does either any good. I think history supports that and other things about series/team relationships....

Just had a look at scca statistics for 2012... a total of 188 FC entries in 84 total races, so, whats that, 2.2 cars per event in an 8-class mixed race?

Mike on the other hand gets what, 25 (30?, 35?) week in week out?

Doubt he thinks much about scca any more..... :-)

[Wren]

And that will make the drive from Alabama to New England worth it.

[R Nicholas]

[Wren say's ]
Now for personal opinion time. It annoys me that what was allowed would be portrayed as what was legal. Big difference. I think there are very few serious efforts that are trying to move back and forth between the club and pro, but it certainly makes things harder for them. It is harder for manufacturers as well to do things like design, tool, and manufactur multiple diffusers.
I don't like to see the F2000 series continue to move away from the club spec. I don't think it does either any good. I think history supports that and other things about series/team relationships.

Wren,
I think its a pretty safe bet to say you're really ticked off that the series is more then likely going to let the Radon participate again this year. That said, I'm sure that many feel this way. Your quote above should not be over looked by the series officials. The more & more stuff they let in drives up the cost for all of us. We all know its easy to slam the SCCA for many things they do, but thankfully the have a real & published set of rules in the GCR that we all refer to often. They also spell out the protest process when we have a problem.

I would much rather follow the GCR VS making it up as we go along.
Flashing the ECU is one thing, running cars and aero bits that would not survive a Runoffs impound is really making the waters muddy.

The series is the best place to race FC / FF in the US right now, I just think they are getting a little too far in left field with the rules package.



Rob Nicholas

[Wren]

Rob,

It really doesn't tick me off that F2000 might allow the Radon to compete. I don't think I really get to be ticked off and we don't know even know that they are going to allow it yet. As a big fan of the series with some peripheral involvement, I would be disappointed. The F2000 series is some of the best racing in NA, at any level. It would be disappointing to see them running GCR legal FC with a car that was never legal to any set of GCR rules in the same group for the same trophies. With the 2013 rules change it really does seem straightforward to make it legal. Am I missing something?

What has ticked me off are the claims that the rules change is all some giant, complicated conspiracy to oulaw the Radon because other manufacturers are scared of it. That is what got so old.

As always, if anyone out there wants to calmly, rationally discuss my rules clarification with a little bit more discretion or if you are lonely and want to chat, please feel free to email, pm, or call me.
It is always interesting to discuss what it does mean and what it doesn't mean. For instance there have been claims that the carbon fiber FC chassis construction ruling would disallow things like the Comprent side impact protection, carbon dash panels, plastic radio holders and other things. It does not.

[R Nicholas]

Rob,

It really doesn't tick me off that F2000 might allow the Radon to compete. I don't think I really get to be ticked off and we don't know even know that they are going to allow it yet. As a big fan of the series with some peripheral involvement, I would be disappointed. The F2000 series is some of the best racing in NA, at any level. It would be disappointing to see them running GCR legal FC with a car that was never legal to any set of GCR rules in the same group for the same trophies. With the 2013 rules change it really does seem straightforward to make it legal. Am I missing something?

What has ticked me off are the claims that the rules change is all some giant, complicated conspiracy to oulaw the Radon because other manufacturers are scared of it. That is what got so old.

As always, if anyone out there wants to calmly, rationally discuss my rules clarification with a little bit more discretion or if you are lonely and want to chat, please feel free to email, pm, or call me.
It is always interesting to discuss what it does mean and what it doesn't mean. For instance there have been claims that the carbon fiber FC chassis construction ruling would disallow things like the Comprent side impact protection, carbon dash panels, plastic radio holders and other things. It does not.

Thank you for the clarification, the above are valid talking points.


Rob N

[Wren]

For the record I have a carbon fiber dash in my DB-6 and carbon interior panels for my new car. I have no concerns about the legality of either.

[rperry]

The more & more stuff they let in drives up the cost for all of us. We all know its easy to slam the SCCA for many things they do, but thankfully the have a real & published set of rules in the GCR that we all refer to often. They also spell out the protest process when we have a problem.

I believe increased competition actually lowers costs, but I guess that's at least partially rooted in my political beliefs. Obviously in racing if the new competition is "too fast" then existing equipment becomes obsolete and costs go up, but I don't think the Radon renders other chassis obsolete.

I would much rather follow the GCR VS making it up as we go along.
Flashing the ECU is one thing, running cars and aero bits that would not survive a Runoffs impound is really making the waters muddy.

The problem is when the GCR changes arbitrarily to make cars illegal. Purplefrog had a nice post about this in another thread, where a number of others pointed out that the 2013 GCR has made anywhere from half to all of the field illegal.

So i went back and read the September 2012 GCR, the one used at the 2012 Runoffs.

I can't find any such FC rule about diffusers widening rear of the rear axle centerline.

That said the club has decided some diffusers legal at the 2012 Runoffs will not be legal in 2013 club.
While F2kCS is getting trash talked on Apexspeed about supposedly allowing things that are illegal in club in 2013, and folks are complaining about having to have two different diffusers... (#209 and #210 in another thread)

In reality F2kCS didn't change the rule to make club member's 2012 gear illegal in 2013. So... why should we change our rules to force our customers to throw out their 2012 gear? Doesn't sound customer friendly.

Just setting that part of the record straight.

[Purple Frog]

Yeah, nice post. But by midnight last night we are all convinced that i'm totally wrong. Rule has been somewhere in the GCR since 1986.. but hidden in the FF section where some FC guys wouldn't think to look.

[R. Pare]

The problem is when the GCR changes arbitrarily to make cars illegal. Purplefrog had a nice post about this in another thread, where a number of others pointed out that the 2013 GCR has made anywhere from half to all of the field illegal.

Incredible that this sort of BS is still being bantered about.

[Dennis McCarthy]

We can all sleep better tonight knowing the rules got changed and FC in SCCA racing is safe from Radon contamination. I for one can't wait for all of the new and better competition we are going to see from another whole slew of brand new "compliant" FC cars that certainly will be built and raced this year now that the rules have been clarified. There must be constructors tooling up now to be first in line to sell new cars. Thank you to those who gave of their time and worked so hard to who saved us active club racers from those scary cars that might have actually been built and raced.....

[Wren]

We can all sleep better tonight knowing the rules got changed and FC in SCCA racing is safe from Radon contamination. I for one can't wait for all of the new and better competition we are going to see from another whole slew of brand new "compliant" FC cars that certainly will be built and raced this year now that the rules have been clarified. There must be constructors tooling up now to be first in line to sell new cars. Thank you to those who gave of their time and worked so hard to who saved us active club racers from those scary cars that might have actually been built and raced.....

This is the second time you have posted something similar in this thread and I still don't get it. What are you actually trying to say.

You seem to have a lot of anger towards everyone but the people who built a car that was not compliant to any FC rules we have ever had. You would do well to save some of your indignity for the people for the people who are actually responsible for this mess: the guys who ignored the rules while building cars and then sold them as FC cars when they were not.

[Dennis McCarthy]

Whatever....

[alangbaker]

Whatever....

I'm just a neutral observer in this discussion; I don't own an FC.

And I think Wren is dead on.

The rules changes for this year didn't make the Radon illegal: it was never legal in the first place as far as I can tell.

[Daryl DeArman]

I'm just a neutral observer in this discussion; I don't own an FC.

And I think Wren is dead on.

The rules changes for this year didn't make the Radon illegal: it was never legal in the first place as far as I can tell.

I'm a neutral observer as well...and I don't think either one of them is entirely correct

My $.02:

The Radon constructors took some chances, explored some areas of the rulebook that were ambiguous. It's a risk they decided to take by not building the same mousetrap as everyone else. Whether it's diffusers, gear shifting systems or the direction your engine is oriented the intent of the constructor is to intepret an ambiguous rule to their benefit. When the need arises, they defend their position, sometimes unsuccessfully. It's not their intent to purposely build an illegal car/component while marketing it as compliant.

On the other end, I don't think the "Radon haters" tried to railroad Nathan and Co out of town. I believe they didn't feel threatened by the Radon, but rather if such concepts were indeed legal what the "son of Radon" might be and how that might affect their efforts. Protectionism of the status quo.

[rperry]

On the other end, I don't think the "Radon haters" tried to railroad Nathan and Co out of town. I believe they didn't feel threatened by the Radon, but rather if such concepts were indeed legal what the "son of Radon" might be and how that might affect their efforts. Protectionism of the status quo.

If that were true, then the rules could have been amended to stop things right were Radon had taken them. Thus preventing any subsequent "son of Radon" cars without banning existing ones, especially considering that the newly banned features are not even performance features, but safety enhancements. Instead, clarifications and rules were carefully crafted to make ONLY the Radon both illegal and nearly impossible to modify for compliance.

A fine example of cronyism and protectionism, no doubt.

[starkejt]

Bowel-shaking, jaw-dropping delusions of grandeur.

[alangbaker]

If that were true, then the rules could have been amended to stop things right were Radon had taken them. Thus preventing any subsequent "son of Radon" cars without banning existing ones, especially considering that the newly banned features are not even performance features, but safety enhancements. Instead, clarifications and rules were carefully crafted to make ONLY the Radon both illegal and nearly impossible to modify for compliance.

A fine example of cronyism and protectionism, no doubt.

This paragraph is from the FC Preparation rules from the GCRs of September 2012.

"B.1. Chassis
The chassis shall be of tubular steel construction with no stress-bearing panels except bulkhead and undertray; curvature of the undertray shall not exceed 2.54cm (1 inch). Monocoque chassis construction is prohibited. Stress bearing panels are defined as: sheet metal affixed to the frame by welding, bonding, rivets, bolts, or screws which have centers closer than 15.24cm (6 inches). Body panels cannot be utilized as stress bearing panels, except as required for 1986 construction rules. The use of composite materials using carbon and/or Kevlar reinforcement is prohibited.

What is Radon claiming that would not make the car illegal under that paragraph ALONE?

[jimh3063]

There has been more bowel expulsion on this thread than I can to comment on.
I was told I could run my car and that was the intention of the Fasttrack line.
I was told that by someone who was on the call and part of the CRB.
I hope to get something in writing to clear this **** up. That is the only thing that will shut that windbag Wren up. Wren, feel free to come visit me in the paddock if you have issues with me. This computer argument **** is for pussies.

I plan on running the car soon. I would hope someone will protest me so I can prove my point. Also I have in my possession the COA ruling when Nathan self protested himself. I was asked to not publish them. I will show them to anyone at the track as well as the SOM. These are the same docs that were shown to the people who inspected our cars at Sebring.

It's funny, I was in xSR for 10 years. the people were great and were very supportive to any and all competitors. I've met some really cool people in this class but it has some of the biggest dbag's I have ever met.

Please protest me. Pretty please.
Jimmy

[Wren]

If that were true, then the rules could have been amended to stop things right were Radon had taken them. Thus preventing any subsequent "son of Radon" cars without banning existing ones, especially considering that the newly banned features are not even performance features, but safety enhancements. Instead, clarifications and rules were carefully crafted to make ONLY the Radon both illegal and nearly impossible to modify for compliance.

Are you complaining that the 2013 rules were not changed to make the Radon legal? Otherwise, it really seems like you have missed the last few hundred posts in this thread and the latest fastrack.

The 2013 rules change did not make the Radon illegal, so the 2013 rules did not require any crafting at all to make that happen. The Radon was never legal per the 2012 GCR. The 2013 FF/FC rules changes did not make the Radon illegal as it was never legal to start with. I'm starting to sound like a broken record and you seem to be willfully ignoring what has been clearly presented. Are you ignoring it because you think that the compliance reviews that Nathan has are somehow proof of the Radon's legality? They are not. They are proof of the specific things that he asked, but if you ask the wrong question, don't provide all of the neccesary information or don't ask a question at all then the rulings are not worth much. They are absolutely not definitive proof that the Radon was legal in 2012 or any other year.

No one has even tried to advance an argument that the Radon was legal per the 2012 GCR. That is certainly not proof of anything, but the diffuser thread certainly shows that people can logically and politely discuss differences of opinion on rules issues.

I'm also interested in what exactly has changed in the rules that makes the Radon harder to bring into compliance now? In 2010 Nathan was providing some pretty specific quotes for the cost of aluminum parts to replace the carbon fiber parts. The 2012 rules would have required the Radon to make major frame modifications which are not required under the 2013 GCR. It looks like compliance has gotten easier.

A fine example of cronyism and protectionism, no doubt.

What are you saying? Who is being protected from what? Why? Please provide some specifics.

Please protest me. Pretty please.

schedule of events?

[starkejt]

I've met some really cool people in this class but it has some of the biggest dbag's I have ever met.

Agreed 100%. There are some major dbags (or psychopaths, as it were) in this class that do things like scream and threaten to "crack your skull," put cash bounties on crashing out competitors, etc. Truly a shame

[jimh3063]

Agreed 100%. There are some major dbags (or psychopaths, as it were) in this class that do things like scream and threaten to "crack your skull," put cash bounties on crashing out competitors, etc. Truly a shame

I've never heard of someone saying that they were going to crack someones skull.
I've actually done some screaming myself so I'll stop on that one. I had someones tire print on my car where they crashed into me and they were trying to say Charles did it.
Never heard of bounties on crashing into people. What region are you in?

Remind me to not race where you race.

[starkejt]

I've never heard of someone saying that they were going to crack someones skull.
I've actually done some screaming myself so I'll stop on that one. I had someones tire print on my car where they crashed into me and they were trying to say Charles did it.
Never heard of bounties on crashing into people. What region are you in?

Remind me to not race where you race.

You threatened to crack my skull, among others. I guess you forgot about your bounty as well.

[jimh3063]

Wren:
Once I know my schedule, I'll let you know.
Please feel free to protest me.

Jimmy

[Wren]

This paragraph is from the FC Preparation rules from the GCRs of September 2012.

"B.1. Chassis
The chassis shall be of tubular steel construction with no stress-bearing panels except bulkhead and undertray; curvature of the undertray shall not exceed 2.54cm (1 inch). Monocoque chassis construction is prohibited. Stress bearing panels are defined as: sheet metal affixed to the frame by welding, bonding, rivets, bolts, or screws which have centers closer than 15.24cm (6 inches). Body panels cannot be utilized as stress bearing panels, except as required for 1986 construction rules. The use of composite materials using carbon and/or Kevlar reinforcement is prohibited.

What is Radon claiming that would not make the car illegal under that paragraph ALONE?

There is a section of the 2012 GCR that allows carbon fiber interior panels, 9.1.1.D.8.f. It is under the bodywork section and what makes things like the carbon fiber dash in my car legal.

Evidently Radon got some sort of positive compliance review for these panels based on this. I think that they conviently failed to mention that they also mount things like the shocks to carbon panels. Once they start mounting suspension to it, then it becomes part of the chassis and subject to that rule. I believe that they didn't provide the neccesary information for the SOM or COA to make a ruling and their ruling only covers the things that they did provide information on.

In other cases their positive rulings for features of their car come with conditions that they likely never got rulings on.

I was told I could run my car and that was the intention of the Fasttrack line

Only if your car is legal per the 2012 GCR.

[jimh3063]

Do you have any pictures or drawings? You're calling a lot of people a liar and you've never been close to a Radon. You're like the guy who talks about being with a hot girl and really went home and gave himself a twist. All talk no proof.

All I ask is you provide proof of your statements.
I've yet to see any of that.

[reidhazelton]

There has been more bowel expulsion on this thread than I can to comment on.
I was told I could run my car and that was the intention of the Fasttrack line.
I was told that by someone who was on the call and part of the CRB.
I hope to get something in writing to clear this **** up. That is the only thing that will shut that windbag Wren up. Wren, feel free to come visit me in the paddock if you have issues with me. This computer argument **** is for pussies.

I've met some really cool people in this class but it has some of the biggest dbag's I have ever met.

Please protest me. Pretty please.
Jimmy

Things like this do nothing to make the playground friendlier. All the secrets and mysterious background stories gets really old.

If you want to help yourself, publish the super secret folder of rulings.

I am, as I am sure others are, interested in what those rulings are.

[reidhazelton]

As a general note, doesn't the "zero tolerance policy" on ad hominem attacks go both ways, or is it just for a certain few folks here?

I recall a previous thread where this same thing was far less prevalent and much more restrained and it got a hand slappin'.

I find the rational side of this thread quite interesting, and would like to see it get back to that. The diffuser thread is pretty cool, and not diluted with unproductive comments.

What is this, the SM forum?

[jimh3063]

Things like this do nothing to make the playground friendlier. All the secrets and mysterious background stories gets really old.

If you want to help yourself, publish the super secret folder of rulings.

I am, as I am sure others are, interested in what those rulings are.

They don't belong to me. I was asked not to publish them. Both Tony and Mirl have seen them They are real folks. If you asked me not to publish something, I wouldn't. I am more than happy to show anyone who is at the track when I am and wants to see them. That includes Mr Keith.

If Wren thinks Nathan should show us, why doesn't he show his compliance review himself.

I will say, he better be sure that his car is complaint, because all the crap he's flung at others will come back to haunt him.

[jimh3063]

You threatened to crack my skull, among others. I guess you forgot about your bounty as well.

Are you talking about when you were beside me at lime rock and smashed into me. You know when you were beside me and Charles was in front of me and you smashed into me. You then tried to tell me it was Charles when your tire mark was up the side of my car. You did a ton of damage to my car. I remember it well.

As for cracking your skull, What are you smoking, What bounty?
I did yell at you and would do it again. I'd like to say I've never screwed up and smashed into someone else but I'd be lying. I have and the first thing I do is go over an apolgize for my screw up. You sat there and tried to tell me the car ahead of me hit me on my side. Oddly enough right where you were. I have your tire marks up the side of my car. This has nothing to do with this thread and I'd be happy to take it up elsewhere. Maybe if you were more careful, you wouldn't be smacking into people. I'm sure that would cure the yelling thing at the same time.

[reidhazelton]

They don't belong to me. I was asked not to publish them. Both Tony and Mirl have seen them They are real folks. If you asked me not to publish something, I wouldn't. I am more than happy to show anyone who is at the track when I am and wants to see them. That includes Mr Keith.

If Wren thinks Nathan should show us, why doesn't he show his compliance review himself.

I will say, he better be sure that his car is complaint, because all the crap he's flung at others will come back to haunt him.

I can respect that. However, I assumed when someone bought the car and was handed the super secret envelope that was part of the purchase price and became their property. If it is what people say it is then we have two distinctly different COA rulings. My point being, the more information out there the better and people can stop arguing over assumptions.

If it is an "Ill show you mine if you show me yours but I don't trust you" kind of thing, both parties send the files to me and I'll post them at the same time. This shroud of secrecy is really making a constructive debate impossible.

What is the difference from showing someone in person and showing anyone who asks at the track?

And I think Wren knows his rule book, I wouldn't worry about it. I think his whole aim at this was to further define what is compliant, not to give himself an advantage...just a guess.

[Wren]

Proof of what?

Proof that the Radon needs carbon fiber to be a compliant material for chassis brackets in order for the car to be legal? Please refer to post #116 of this thread. I am happy to take Ulrich's and Camadella's word for it, so I guess that is proof enough for me. I guess that you could reference the attached photo, which is straight from the Radon webpage. Am I missing something and those shocks are really mounted to aluminum or steel?

Proof that the Radon needs to consider the rear roll hoop bulkhead to be forward of the fuel cell in order to have their floor configured like it is? That came directly from Nathan, in his compliance review requests. See below:

http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...2&postcount=25

Note that in the stewards and COA rulings that made the floor compliant, they offer no ruling on his rear roll hoop bulkhead being legal. I don't think he ever got a ruling on his rear roll hoop bulkhead location. Am I wrong?

Proof about the diffuser? There have been pictures posted. Do I really need to go dig them up?

Of the things above, which of them would I be more clear on if I were to inspect the car more closely? Are you disputing any of the things I have claimed?

I think it is appropriate to claim that I have at least provided a reasonable argument that the Radon is not legal. No one has even tried to advance a claim that the Radon is legal. All that we get are claims about conspiracies. It is disappointing.

I disagree that I have called a lot of people a liar. Link?

[jimh3063]

Wren:
Please provide a picture of the bottom of the tray and the roll hoop.

Jimmy

Proof of what?

Proof that the Radon needs carbon fiber to be a compliant material for chassis brackets in order for the car to be legal? Please refer to post #116 of this thread. I am happy to take Ulrich's and Camadella's word for it, so I guess that is proof enough for me. I guess that you could reference the attached photo, which is straight from the Radon webpage. Am I missing something and those shocks are really mounted to aluminum or steel?

Proof that the Radon needs to consider the rear roll hoop bulkhead to be forward of the fuel cell in order to have their floor configured like it is? That came directly from Nathan, in his compliance review requests. See below:

http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...2&postcount=25

Note that in the stewards and COA rulings that made the floor compliant, they offer no ruling on his rear roll hoop bulkhead being legal. I don't think he ever got a ruling on his rear roll hoop bulkhead location. Am I wrong?

Proof about the diffuser? There have been pictures posted. Do I really need to go dig them up?

Of the things above, which of them would I be more clear on if I were to inspect the car more closely? Are you disputing any of the things I have claimed?

I think it is appropriate to claim that I have at least provided a reasonable argument that the Radon is not legal. No one has even tried to advance a claim that the Radon is legal. All that we get are claims about conspiracies. It is disappointing.

I disagree that I have called a lot of people a liar. Link?

[Tom Valet]

The 2012 rules would have required the Radon to make major frame modifications which are not required under the 2013 GCR. It looks like compliance has gotten easier.

Wren, I asked this before but it got lost in the mud and nobody answered: What is required to make a Radon compliant to the 2013 rules and how much would it cost? If it is a simple fix, ie replacing carbon fiber brackets with aluminum and the cost is minor, then why not simply re-homologate the cars to the 2013 rules and everyone can go about their business.

[problemchild]

Wren:
Please provide a picture of the bottom of the tray and the roll hoop.

Jimmy

If a Radon is in the forest, and no one is there to see whether it is illegal or not, is it legal?

Jimmy, just disclose pictures and documentation showing the car is legal.
Pretty simple concept