FC/ FF rules passed 12 / 0

[jimh3063]

Here's a picture where you can see the roll hoop.

The rear roll hoop bulkhead is 16 gauge 4130 sheet welded continuously to the main roll hoop. The main roll hoop is one piece of 1-3/8 tubing that runs all the way from the floor in front of the fuel cell.

All the rest of the tubes are individual braces. The square tubes form a fuel cell enclosure behind the main roll hoop bulkhead and do not run above shoulder height. No panels are mounted to the frame on centers closer than six inches, including the fuel cell enclosure.

[jimh3063]

Wren:
I in no way claim to know the rules like you. I would ask your opinion on something since you're the man when it comes to the rules.

You posted the top of the shock tray. If there was a metal bracket under it that the shock tray that the shock mounts are bolts bolted into that then bolts to the tube frame, is that not legal and why?

[Wren]

Wren, feel free to come visit me in the paddock if you have issues with me. This computer argument **** is for <snip>.

I don't even know you. I don't think that I have given any indication in this thread that I have any issues with you. I would like for you to tone it down a little bit so that this thread doesn't get locked. I certainly don't want to "come visit you."

This computer argument **** is a reasonably effective way to have a reasonable discussion about the subject. None of that is to imply that I am not a *****.

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.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this in the thread, but I have never done an upclose and detailed inspection of the Radon. I have talked with people who have and I have seen the pictures that they posted and I am also relying on the claims from Camadella and Ulrich. I cannot provide an exhaustive list and what I write is only my opinion.

I think that the biggest thing they would have to change is their use of carbon fiber.

Their cockpit interior panels are carbon and would not be legal if they are mounted outside the frame. If I understand Nathan's claim correctly they have a design for an aluminum replacement and quotes for less than $4k/car to replace.

Their shock mount is currently a carbon fiber bracket. This would need to be replaced with something else. As the shocks are part of the suspension, what they mount to must be compliant to the chassis rules. I think that they would be able to mount them to either an aluminum bracket or add tubes to the frame to pick up the tops of the shocks.

They would need a new diffuser that is compliant with the bodywork rules. See the diffuser thread for the painful details.

That is all that I am aware of.

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

Jimmy

see attached.

Would you care to provide any proof of legality.

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.

So your offer to trade is off? I thought you owned your copies of the compliance review?

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

trade?

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 had better be sure my car is compliant because that is the right thing to do.

[rperry]

The radon raced without breaking any rules throughout 2012. Clarifications and rules changes made after the fact in 2013 made it illegal - clarifications and changes that no one was ever interested in until the Radon showed up. The rules were fine for years, and when someone was finally clever enough to make full use of them, those who were not so clever suddenly became interested in changing stable rules.

It's not hard to see that the 2012 clarifications, homologation of existing cars and 2013 rules were painstakingly crafted to ban the car, make it illegal to bring into compliance, and impossible to retrofit for 2013, respectively.

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.

The 2012 GCR clarification that somehow thinks carbon fiber "contains at least 50% iron," could be met by replacing carbon panels with metal. I think Nathan said that these panels would be very expensive, similar in terms of speed, and much less safe in another thread. Essentially a mandate for an inferior material at a much higher price... SCCA servings it's members I guess

So, sure, replace carbon with aluminum! But wait... the 2013 rules cleverly include this:

"Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and anti-intrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or installed in such a manner that they serve any structural purpose other than that of anti-intrusion. In the absence of such panels the chassis must be capable of performing to the same level or degree as when they are installed."

This obviously requires a complete redesign of the Radon, which is exactly what was intended. Given that virtually any panel that could provide intrusion of impact resistance would obviously have to be mounted structurally, what is the purpose of this rule, other than to make cars less safe and get rid of the pesky competition from Radon?

[alangbaker]

Wren:
I in no way claim to know the rules like you. I would ask your opinion on something since you're the man when it comes to the rules.

You posted the top of the shock tray. If there was a metal bracket under it that the shock tray that the shock mounts are bolts bolted into that then bolts to the tube frame, is that not legal and why?

Your phrasing is... ...interesting.

Is there, in fact, such a bracket?

Would that bracket be sufficient to fully support the loads from the the shock mounts and bell crank pivots WITHOUT the carbon fiber? Because if it wouldn't (assuming it exists), then the carbon fiber panel is an essential part of the chassis, isn't it?

[Wren]

Here's a picture where you can see the roll hoop.

The rear roll hoop bulkhead is 16 gauge 4130 sheet welded continuously to the main roll hoop. The main roll hoop is one piece of 1-3/8 tubing that runs all the way from the floor in front of the fuel cell.

All the rest of the tubes are individual braces. The square tubes form a fuel cell enclosure behind the main roll hoop bulkhead and do not run above shoulder height. No panels are mounted to the frame on centers closer than six inches, including the fuel cell enclosure.

I believe that I can see two hoops in that picture, the main hoop and the rear roll hoop. As evidenced on a Van Diemen, the hoop does not have to reach all the way to the ground to be considered a hoop.

Here is what the stewards had to say in my compliance review and this was upheld by the COA

The FF/FC chassis rule wording allows for both a Rear Roll Hoop and a Main Roll Hoop. In a single hoop design the Rear and the Main hoops are one and the same. On a dual hoop design (such as presented by Mr. Keith) the rearmost of the two hoops will always be the Rear Roll Hoop but it may also be the Main Hoop if it is constructed of appropriate material.
The Rear Roll Hoop is determined primarily by its location in the chassis. The Main Roll Hoop is determined primarily by it use of the GCR mandated tubing size.

Here Nathan describes their hoop design as a double hoop arrangement.

http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...26&postcount=7

Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable in a formula car that didn't have a double main roll hoop design (like the Citation or our new car)

Wren:
I in no way claim to know the rules like you. I would ask your opinion on something since you're the man when it comes to the rules.

You posted the top of the shock tray. If there was a metal bracket under it that the shock tray that the shock mounts are bolts bolted into that then bolts to the tube frame, is that not legal and why?

2012 or 2013 rules?

Is there a metal bracket under there?

[jimh3063]

Wren:
I in no way claim to know the rules like you. I would ask your opinion on something since you're the man when it comes to the rules.

You posted the top of the shock tray. If there was a metal bracket under it that the shock tray that the shock mounts are bolts bolted into that then bolts to the tube frame, is that not legal and why?

Wren
I think I was typing when you submitting your post. Can you answer my question on the metal bracket under the tray that the shocks would mount to which them mounts to the chassis. Again if the shocks were mounted to the metal bracket and thetray was just that a tray. For the record on the carbon skin which Nathan did get a positive ruling from the COA, does not extend as far as your photo. There is a piece that gets cut as to not extend outside the cockpit boundaries. I think I may have a photo of that. I' m planning on putting an ARB adjuster soon. If I don't I'll take one then.

[Wren]

The radon raced without breaking any rules throughout 2012. Clarifications and rules changes made after the fact in 2013 made it illegal - clarifications and changes that no one was ever interested in until the Radon showed up.

I am not sure if this forum has the ignore function enabled, but I suspect that rob has turned on the ignore function for me.

There is not a shred of proof that the Radon raced in 2012 without breaking rules. What are you basing these claims on? Being at a club event or F2KCS event and not being protested is no proof of compliance or non-compliance.

There is simply no truth to the claim about no one wanting the rules changed until the Radon came along.

The 2012 GCR clarification that somehow thinks carbon fiber "contains at least 50% iron,"

There was no clarification of that and you are intentionally ignoring the actual discussion of the subject. You continue to try to parse the words in the GCR and use an ad absurdum argument. The GCR continues to use industry standard langauge. Any response to the ban on carbon fiber in the chassis in the 2012 rules?

[Wren]

Wren
I think I was typing when you submitting your post. Can you answer my question on the metal bracket under the tray that the shocks would mount to which them mounts to the chassis. Again if the shocks were mounted to the metal bracket and thetray was just that a tray. For the record on the carbon skin which Nathan did get a positive ruling from the COA, does not extend as far as your photo. There is a piece that gets cut as to not extend outside the cockpit boundaries. I think I may have a photo of that. I' m planning on putting an ARB adjuster soon. If I don't I'll take one then.

I cannot answer your question unless you tell me which rules to reference and if the car delivered with a bracket under there.

Yes, those are old pictures.

[starkejt]

I am not sure if this forum has the ignore function enabled

does

[dc]

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?

As a matter of fact, it does. Though with 377,047 total posts in 54,298 threads, the Admins and Moderators cannot see or read everything on ApexSpeed. Some of us actually do try to work during the day. Community awareness and policing goes a long way in preventing things like this from escalating. Click that little red in the bottom left corner of ANY post on the forums, and all Mods will see the issue and take appropriate action.


Jim Hanrahan was put on 10-day leave from the forums until he can learn how to behave here on ApexSpeed. He has pushed the envelope far too long and now can sit and think about it for a while.

This is an excellent discussion with real tangible information. Name-calling, threats and character attacks will not be tolerated here. As most people here know, it's the single fastest way to be shown the door.

Keep it civil, boys.

[rperry]

I am not sure if this forum has the ignore function enabled, but I suspect that rob has turned on the ignore function for me.

There is not a shred of proof that the Radon raced in 2012 without breaking rules. What are you basing these claims on? Being at a club event or F2KCS event and not being protested is no proof of compliance or non-compliance.

It took a lot of politics and after the fact clarifications and rule changes in 2013 to rule the car illegal. Passing it off as just an innocent rules changes is disingenuous and obviously so to anyone who has watched the process from the beginning.

There was no clarification of that and you are intentionally ignoring the actual discussion of the subject. You continue to try to parse the words in the GCR and use an ad absurdum argument. The GCR continues to use industry standard langauge.

Shopping around for one email from one engineer doesn't constitute an industry standard, even if they pay $60 to ASME every year.

[alangbaker]

They would need a new diffuser that is compliant with the bodywork rules. See the diffuser thread for the painful details.

That is all that I am aware of.

see attached.

Regarding the attached drawing of the undertray arrangement, how can possibly meet the 1" requirement for the reference area as it was phrased in 2012 (in the FF rules section to which the FC class was also subject)?

From the 2012 rules:

"A reference area is defined by the full width of the lowest surfaces of the car licked by the air stream between the front axle centerline and the rear of the rear tires. These surfaces may include the floor pan, undertrays, side pod bottoms and any essentially horizontal bodywork that is included in the lowest surfaces licked by the air stream. Within this reference area, the lowest surfaces licked by the air stream must be flat with a total vertical tolerance of 2.54cm.. An undertray beneath the engine, bell housing and/or gearbox is not required."

So the drawing you've attached clearly shows that--unless the Radon has no bottom panels at all until after the rear of the rear tires, it is clearly in violation of the maximum 1" curvature rule.

Or is there something I'm missing?

[Daryl DeArman]

Your phrasing is... ...interesting.

Is there, in fact, such a bracket?

Would that bracket be sufficient to fully support the loads from the the shock mounts and bell crank pivots WITHOUT the carbon fiber? Because if it wouldn't (assuming it exists), then the carbon fiber panel is an essential part of the chassis, isn't it?

Stressed panel definition creation may be relevant here. Some time ago somebody(ies) decided to define what is and isn't a stressed panel by defining how each is/isn't attached. That's because prior to that definition it was too dificult to define how much strength said panel was permitted to add before it was considered stressed.

I see the same issue with shock mounts or fairings on the back of an a-arm. They add some strength to the mount or a-arm, even if extremely small. Who gets to define whether it's an essential part or not? If it doesn't collapse but sags,bends, and creaks tremendously does it pass the test? What if removal of the questionable component results in the remaining component deflecting .001" over a 4' span? So, where in the GCR is that line drawn between those two extremes? Is it one of those "I'll know it when I see it" subjective things?

Seriously, we don't need a rule book with another 100 pages of definitions of definitions to keep the Smokey Yunicks away. We need to allow some ingeniuity and creative interpretation of rules (not strained, not tortured per my definition of such ) If you (generic FC racer) don't want variety in approach why didn't you choose a spec class?

[alangbaker]

Stressed panel definition creation may be relevant here. Some time ago somebody(ies) decided to define what is and isn't a stressed panel by defining how each is/isn't attached. That's because prior to that definition it was too dificult to define how much strength said panel was permitted to add before it was considered stressed.

I see the same issue with shock mounts or fairings on the back of an a-arm. They add some strength to the mount or a-arm, even if extremely small. Who gets to define whether it's an essential part or not? If it doesn't collapse but sags,bends, and creaks tremendously does it pass the test? What if removal of the questionable component results in the remaining component deflecting .001" over a 4' span? So, where in the GCR is that line drawn between those two extremes? Is it one of those "I'll know it when I see it" subjective things?

Seriously, we don't need a rule book with another 100 pages of definitions of definitions to keep the Smokey Yunicks away. We need to allow some ingeniuity and creative interpretation of rules (not strained, not tortured per my definition of such ) If you (generic FC racer) don't want variety in approach why didn't you choose a spec class?

Whether it's a "stressed panel" or not as defined by the rules wouldn't matter in this case, would it? The use of carbon fibre in the chassis/frame is expressly forbidden and to me, if the strength/presence of the panel is necessary for the proper operation of the vehicle then the panel has to be a part of the "chassis" as defined by the rules.

That carbon panel is a part (or perhaps all) of the structure to which the shocks and bell cranks are mounted.

[Rennie Clayton]

[Wren]

It took a lot of politics and after the fact clarifications and rule changes in 2013 to rule the car illegal. Passing it off as just an innocent rules changes is disingenuous and obviously so to anyone who has watched the process from the beginning.

It did not take any of those things. What are you talking about? Nothing could be more clear than the phrase "carbon fiber is prohibited." You seem to conveniently ignore that whole part of the argument.

The start of the rules change process predates your join date here. I doubt that you have watched it from the beginning, as the beginning predates the Radon.

Shopping around for one email from one engineer doesn't constitute an industry standard, even if they pay $60 to ASME every year.

Who are you accusing of shopping around for an email? The stewards, who are neutral in this whole thing, went looking for an expert to ask. I did not suggest ASME, they came to that on their own. ASME was good enough for Nathan, why isn't it good enough for you?

Yes, I deleted the guy's name from the email, but it is not some random guy who is an ASME member. It is the ASME employee who is an engineering manager responsible for being an expert on materials, standards, and certifications. I think that is an excellent choice for somone to consult on how the phrase nonferrous is used in industry. Would you care to propose another method?

It is easy to make an argument for nonferrous based on just the GCR too. None of that is neccesary since carbon fiber is prohibited.

Regarding the attached drawing of the undertray arrangement, how can possibly meet the 1" requirement for the reference area as it was phrased in 2012 (in the FF rules section to which the FC class was also subject)?

From the 2012 rules:

"A reference area is defined by the full width of the lowest surfaces of the car licked by the air stream between the front axle centerline and the rear of the rear tires. These surfaces may include the floor pan, undertrays, side pod bottoms and any essentially horizontal bodywork that is included in the lowest surfaces licked by the air stream. Within this reference area, the lowest surfaces licked by the air stream must be flat with a total vertical tolerance of 2.54cm.. An undertray beneath the engine, bell housing and/or gearbox is not required."

So the drawing you've attached clearly shows that--unless the Radon has no bottom panels at all until after the rear of the rear tires, it is clearly in violation of the maximum 1" curvature rule.

Or is there something I'm missing?

They add a tea tray under the frame. Note that rule you quoted is not a chassis rule so they can be compliant with it using bodywork.

Unfortunately, there are also 2012 rules about 1" of chassis deviation from the rear roll hoop to the front bulkhead. Radon only has less than 1" of deviation from the main hoop to the front bulkhead. There is no requirement for the hoop to reach the lowest surface of the car or be made of main hoop compliant material to be the rear roll hoop. The Van Diemen's rear roll hoop doesn't reach the ground either, except it is compliant.

The stewards tried to warn Radon.

Stressed panel definition creation may be relevant here. Some time ago somebody(ies) decided to define what is and isn't a stressed panel by defining how each is/isn't attached. That's because prior to that definition it was too dificult to define how much strength said panel was permitted to add before it was considered stressed.

I see the same issue with shock mounts or fairings on the back of an a-arm. They add some strength to the mount or a-arm, even if extremely small. Who gets to define whether it's an essential part or not? If it doesn't collapse but sags,bends, and creaks tremendously does it pass the test? What if removal of the questionable component results in the remaining component deflecting .001" over a 4' span? So, where in the GCR is that line drawn between those two extremes? Is it one of those "I'll know it when I see it" subjective things?

You make a good point about stressed panel construction, and if the SCCA does decide to allow carbon panel hybrid construction, then I expect they might use the same rules. Until then, they tell us that carbon may not be used.

There is always going to be some subjectivity to it. I don't see any way around it.

Seriously, we don't need a rule book with another 100 pages of definitions of definitions to keep the Smokey Yunicks away. We need to allow some ingeniuity and creative interpretation of rules (not strained, not tortured per my definition of such ) If you (generic FC racer) don't want variety in approach why didn't you choose a spec class?

I agree with everything that you wrote here.

I will add one more thing: we need competitors and builders who can accept when they missed and ended up on the wrong side of the line.

Jim said that I had better be sure that my car is compliant after all that I have said. I agree, but it might be more appropriate to say that I need to accept it should I ever be proven to have a non-compliant car.

It should not upset or surprise anyone when a constructor plays in the grey area. That is part of the game. Stomping your feet, threatening to sue, and making up conspiracy theories is not the way to handle things when you are wrong.

Rennie, think of it as the car-building season instead of the off season. As long as I am spending $300, I might as well get my money's worth.

[racerdad2]

I've really tried to be silent... I'm just starting in FC this year... & this is just my worthless opinion... First, The Radon tried to stretch the envelope, did so, & went past the rules. Not the first time that has happened in racing. Second, FC is a spec class, tube frame, metal chassis parts, manual tranny, etc. Yes, its old fashioned. That seems to be the point. If I wanted a carbon fibre, flappy paddle car, well... I'd need a lot more money FC is old school. I like that When my cookie jar gets full of $$$, I'd love an F3 or better. In the meantime, I'll run in FC & imagine I'm driving a car like Senna did. Just not as fast, nor as good...

[KevinFirlein]

be careful, FC is most definitely not a spec class. Its based on a formula, pedantic ,but there is a large difference between the 2 types of classes. There is plenty of room in FC to further develope a car bought from a manufacturer or to build a better mousetrap yourself. You just have to stay within the rules laid out by the class formula. Sometimes you miss and go too far.

Thats where the self protest procedure comes into play. Its a very useful tool that SCCA laid out to help racers avoid some of these types of issues. Problem with it is that you only get answered on the exact question you asked and its very possible to word things so you get the answer you want if you aren't being 100% open when you do it.

[RobLav]

Double Dad Racer,
I concur with your assessment, except that FC is not a spec class. Regardless, I still think it's the best racing bang for the buck and is why I started in the class 13 years ago. You will probably not even see a Radon for a while anyway.

[Wren]

Instead of spec, I think the word you are looking for is "restricted." otherwise, good post.

[racerdad2]

Agreed, restricted is the appropriate term, as is my knowledge of this class. I'm looking forward to getting this thing on the track & developing the car & my driving and, perhaps, building a car of my son's design, one day. Now, to figure out if my 'diffuser' / body work thingy is legal

[tstarke4]

Just prep the car and drive it to the best of your ability. Don't worry, be happy.

[Wren]

That's the best advice you are ever going to get. Just because this thread and rules conversations are so visible doesn't mean that they have any impact on more than about 10 people on the whole planet. Don't expect conversations at the track to be anything like conversations here.
Worry about prepping your car and having fun. If you somehow end up with something wildly illegal then maybe someone at a race will come over and politely say something to you and you can have a calm discussion. That ship has just already sailed in this case.

[racerdad2]

My hope is to stay on the lead lap in my first race I'm doing this for my son & me. Well, honestly, its for me. Fortunately, my son enjoys racing, too, so I can play the "I'm doing it all for you, son." card... I am looking forward this new adventure ! & as long as I'm not racing for last place, I'll be one very happy racerdad Looking forward to meeting & racing with all of you, including Radon drivers, in the not-to-distant future. Lord willing & the creek don't rise !

[rperry]

It did not take any of those things. What are you talking about? Nothing could be more clear than the phrase "carbon fiber is prohibited." You seem to conveniently ignore that whole part of the argument.

Where do 2012 rules state carbon fiber is prohibited for brackets? I don't see that anywhere, except for the perversion of the English language by which carbon is defined as containing 50% iron.

The start of the rules change process predates your join date here. I doubt that you have watched it from the beginning, as the beginning predates the Radon.

A dozen rule changes, and a bunch of clarifications, that only affect one chassis, are written by opponents of the chassis, and magically start to appear after the introduction of that chassis.... Yes, just benevolent rules changes made to improve racing and protect drivers, right? BS, especially since many of these rules changes, such as the following, serving no purpose other than reducing safety and outlawing a specific competing chassis.

"Frame-exterior panels (including, but not limited to, body and anti-intrusion panels) and fastening system(s) shall not be designed or installed in such a manner that they serve any structural purpose other than that of anti-intrusion. In the absence of such panels the chassis must be capable of performing to the same level or degree as when they are installed."

I am curious how that rule accomplishes anything but reducing safety, considering ANYTHING that provides impact or intrusion resistance would have to be mounted structurally. And it's vague, because any frame panel of any material will provide stiffness and structural function of some magnitude That seems to be the best route to protectionism - don't write clear rules from the beginning, but rather make them ambiguous, so you have a door to shut on your competitor once they interpret them differently.

Yes, I deleted the guy's name from the email, but it is not some random guy who is an ASME member. It is the ASME employee who is an engineering manager responsible for being an expert on materials, standards, and certifications. I think that is an excellent choice for somone to consult on how the phrase nonferrous is used in industry. Would you care to propose another method?

An email from one engineer does not set the standard for an industry that employs millions, in the same way an email from manager@usps.gov does not speak for the entire US government. And throughout engineering you can find examples of "nonferrous" describing non metals, so what the term should mean in daily use is subjective and will depend on which engineer you decide to email.....

Therefore, I would propose an interpretation based on language and logic - which is not subjective - in which anything ferrous contains iron, and anything which is non-ferrous does not contain iron. I believe dictionaries are used to define "standards" much more than single emails from individuals. In fact, this is the only published standard of the term non-ferrous I could find. Your email is not an official published standard. It's an email.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonferrous
Definition of NONFERROUS1: not containing, including, or relating to iron

2: of or relating to metals other than iron

They add a tea tray under the frame. Note that rule you quoted is not a chassis rule so they can be compliant with it using bodywork.

Unfortunately, there are also 2012 rules about 1" of chassis deviation from the rear roll hoop to the front bulkhead. Radon only has less than 1" of deviation from the main hoop to the front bulkhead. There is no requirement for the hoop to reach the lowest surface of the car or be made of main hoop compliant material to be the rear roll hoop. The Van Diemen's rear roll hoop doesn't reach the ground either, except it is compliant.

Below is the 2012 rule.... The floor extends to the only bulkhead on or near the main roll hoop. The fact they use the term "main hoop bulkhead" and "rear roll hoop bulkhead" interchangeably should tell you all you need to know. Can you show us a "rear roll hoop bulkhead" other than the main hoop bulkhead shown?

I suppose you will need some time to find a new definition of the word bulkhead, and then find one of the world's millions of engineer who will accept it. Just make sure they have an ASME card in their wallet, because then their email will constitute an "industry standard."

A stress bearing floor pan constructed from a minimum of .060 inch heat treated aluminum sheet or 18 gauge steel sheet is required. At a minimum, it shall extend from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. Its curvature shall not exceed one inch. The floor pan may be constructed in multiple sections.

The front bulkhead, forward roll hoop (dash hoop) bulkhead and main hoop bulkhead may also utilize stress-bearing panels. No other stress-bearing panels are allowed.

[tstarke4]

Since you have brought dictionaries into the post, what is the meaning of arbitrary? Of conspiracy? Of metallurgy?
Please explain how a group of people can act in an arbitrary fashion.

[Dennis McCarthy]

Please explain how a group of people can act in an arbitrary fashion.

Not worth the effort...

[tstarke4]

Well, I cancelled the newspaper, and I was just trying to find something to replace reading the comics while I drink my coffee.

[starkejt]

That's the best advice you are ever going to get. Just because this thread and rules conversations are so visible doesn't mean that they have any impact on more than about 10 people on the whole planet. Don't expect conversations at the track to be anything like conversations here.

Dat perspective.

[Jnovak]

I am curious about one part of this discussion. The Radon has a main roll bar that is of an alternative design that has been signed off by a registered PE and has been approved by the SCCA. How can it be defined as illegal when the rear most tubes are essentially braces and added structures for the main roll hoop?

This is conceptually no different than many other cars that also have 2 rear hoops IMO so please define why it is supposedly illegal.

However I will say that the way the main roll hoop bends forward to the floor pan is a very creative solution that, I suspect, does not create any real advantage for the Radon. However this part of the design has been approved by the CoA.

This is simply my opinion on this single item of contention.

I agree that the Radon needs work to be legal for 2013 but I think this can be easily done without breaking the bank.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[S Lathrop]

The argument is being made that the Radon was legal when it was built but was made illegal with the rules revisions of 2012 and 2013. Further, it has also been asserted that the changes in the rules were a conspiracy among the existing manufacturers and some owners against the progressives who designed, built and purchased the Radon. The Radon is the future and the opposition represented the past.

For a formula car to be legal, it must comply with the rules set out for that class of car, the rules formula if you like. A car must comply with all the particulars of those rules contained within the formula to be legal for competition as a car in that class. Too obvious, yes?

I have copied below what I believe are the rules for FC that the Radon does not comply with. Specifically, the "safety panels" are stabilized composite structures that are stress bearing and that the chassis has brackets that are made from composites containing carbon fiber. The prohibition of carbon fiber in the construction of the frame applies to brackets used to attach components to the frame. Finally, the "6 inch fastener" exclusion for stress bearing panels only applies to sheet metal (ferrous and non-ferrous) panels. The "safety panels" are not sheets nor are they metal and they are attached in a manner that adds structure to the frame.

If we want to transition FC to composite construction chassis, then let's have that conversation. I think that the "hybrid" construction, represented by the Radon, is not a viable way to build a car. Having anti-intrusion panels such as the European FF have is a valid requirement and is allowed within the rules since 2012. I would recommend that the option for Kevlar reinforced body work be improved to something like .060 to .080 inches thick. But the Radon does not comply with these rules (2012) either because of the attachment of the safety panels.

Finally, I think the existing Radons should be allowed to race as is. The design effort did not prove to be the killer that everyone expected and given the controversy, no one is likely to attempt to interpret the rules as Nathan did in the future. It is now more important that we all go out and have fun racing F2000.

Here are the rules for FC (2009 GCR) that I think that the Radon fails to meet:

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).
Formula Ford Rules
b. Formula Ford is a Restricted class. Therefore, any allowable modifications,
changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no
exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T.
D.6. Chassis/Frame
Formula Ford 1986 construction requirements as of January 1, 1986. All
new Formula Ford cars are to be built to these specifications covered in
D.6., through D.7.h.. (Required for Formula 2000 also.)
a. The chassis shall be of steel space frame construction. Monocoque-
type structures are prohibited. Stabilized (honeycomb) or
composite (carbon fiber or Kevlar) materials are not permitted,
except as specifically authorized within these rules. ....
b. The area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the
front roll hoop bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead shall be
protected by one of the following methods to prevent the intrusion
of objects into the cockpit.
1. Panel(s), minimum of either .060” heat treated aluminum
(6061-T6 or equivalent) or eighteen (18) gauge steel, attached
outside of the main frame tubes.
2. Reinforced body - at minimum, consisting of a double layer,
five (5) oz., bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated
into the body which shall be securely fastened to the
frame.
For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than six (6) inch
centers (no stress-bearing panels). The material used for the
chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the
roll hoop brace material.
Sheet materials attached to the frame by welding, bonding, or by
rivets or threaded fasteners which are located closer than six (6)
inch centers, are defined as stress-bearing panels. Composite or
stabilized materials shall not be used for stress-bearing panels. ...
Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission,
suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components,
and body panels may be nonferrous, of any shape, and
fastened to the frame in any manner.

[S Lathrop]

I agree that the Radon needs work to be legal for 2013 but I think this can be easily done without breaking the bank.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

I think Jay is absolutely correct.

In fact, I think that the car might be more effective if someone did make the necessary changes. I question the concept of a hybrid chassis.

[Wren]

Where do 2012 rules state carbon fiber is prohibited for brackets? I don't see that anywhere, except for the perversion of the English language by which carbon is defined as containing 50% iron.

I can think of three places off of the top of my head.

1. FC construction rules GCR 9.1.1.B.1
2. General construction rules GCR 9.3.36
3. March 2013 Fastrack ruling on the 2012 GCR

Maybe you are confused on what constitutes a chassis and whether or not brackets are a part of the chassis? Here is the GCR definition of frame:

1.&2.

Frame – The minimal configuration of a car necessary to contain all
running gear and to provide support for the body. Not present on “frameless”
or “unibody” cars.

Anything that falls into this category is subject to the restrictions in the chassis section of the FC rules.

Are brackets part of the frame? The pickup points certainly are. Here is the GCR definition of pickup point.

Pickup point (Suspension) – The location of attachment of a suspension
component on the frame or structure of the car. Pickup point is also
referred to as "pivot axis."

So, the pickup point is part of the frame. Since the pickup point is part of the chassis, then the pickup point is subject to the chassis restrictions. The shock is part of the suspension, so the shock mount is subject to the chassis restrictions.

GCR 1.2.3.C.2 governs the hierarchy of the rules and how the class rules are the most important.

3. The March Fastrack. I really don't want to lose sight of this. The March Fastrack contains the deciding SCCA decision on the use of non-ferrous chassis brackets under the 2012 GCR. You and I can argue this for the rest of our lives, but it won't make a difference. The SCCA has decided that chassis brackets, including the shock mounts, may not be made of carbon fiber. There is no other recourse for this. You would lose a protest under the 2012 GCR if you tried to argue that a chassis bracket may be made out of carbon fiber and it would not be close. You can be angry about his, but I would encourage you to start accepting the issue as it is decided. No matter how much you or I think that our opinions should matter, they don't matter to the SCCA.

You seem to be having some trouble with actually reading and understanding the rules. I know that the SCCA has taken the 2012 GCR off line. Here is a copy of it from the cal-club website if you would like to try to do some research and know what the GCR says before you make your next set of claims.

http://www.calclub.com/html/html2/ar...2/2012-GCR.pdf

You keep returning to your pedantic break down of the word non-ferrous and claiming that the SCCA interpretation means that carbon fiber has more than 50% iron in it. I am sure that argument is not doing your position any good. You are using it as a straw man argument. You ascribe it to the people who don't agree with you and then try to tear it down. That is not a recipe for getting people to see your side.

Because I offered, here is a GCR only reason that non-ferrous means metals containing less than 50% iron.

Here is the GCR definition of ferrous

Ferrous – An alloy containing more than 50% iron.

We do not have a GCR definition of non-ferrous. That doesn't mean that the GCR doesn't give us plenty of context to determine what it means.

I am going to go ahead and put up GCR 1.2.3. It is an important part of any discussion on the GCR.

A. Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying
the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically
cover all possible situations. Words such as “shall” or “shall
not”, “will” or “will not”, “can not”, “may not”, “are” or “must” are
mandatory; and words such as “may” and “should” are permissive.

So, we need to come up with something for non-ferrous that meets this standard. Your definition takes non-ferrous to mean everything on the planet that is not made up of at least 50% iron, including things like air and chicken. I really can understand how someone could make that mistake if they did no research into the matter and just convinced themselves that their opinion is the right one. I actually have a little bit of sympathy for Nathan on this one. But, he was warned on here in 2010 how controversial this definition actually was. He did his customers a disservice by not getting a ruling on this.

My definition (and the only one that the SCCA will use for the 2012 GCR) of non-ferrous is a metal alloy containing less than 50% iron.

Take a look at the section of the FF rules that allow non-ferrous brackets.

d. Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission,
suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels, may be non-ferrous, of any shape, and
attached to the frame in any manner.

You are reading this and interpreting it as brackets may be made of anything since everything on the planet is either ferrous or non-ferrous. "May be non-ferrous" is not the wording that the GCR uses to allow a component to be made of anything. "Unrestricted" is the word that the GCR uses to describe a component that may be made of anything. This wording is used very often in the GCR to say that a material is free. Your definition of non-ferrous would mean that the FF rules on brackets are the only place that the GCR uses "may be non-ferrous" to mean "unrestricted." This is a torturing of the GCR. The GCR is more consistent than that.

On the subject of GCR consistency. The phrase "non-metallic" is used 28 times to refer to components made of materials like carbon fiber or plastics. "non-ferrous" is never used to refer to those things. Again, my definition of nonferrous is consistent with the GCR and yours is not.

A dozen rule changes, and a bunch of clarifications, that only affect one chassis, are written by opponents of the chassis, and magically start to appear after the introduction of that chassis.... Yes, just benevolent rules changes made to improve racing and protect drivers, right? BS, especially since many of these rules changes, such as the following, serving no purpose other than reducing safety and outlawing a specific competing chassis.

Who are these opponents of the chassis and why are opposing the Radon. The veiled references and accusations are demonstrably untrue and I am tired of them.

If the rule change had been accomplished years ago, it would have been a huge service to the people who actually bought Radons. Now they are left holding $100k FS cars that were sold to them as FC cars. The rules change could have prevented this mistake.

Again, the rules change predates the Radon. A while ago I bought a 96VD that came with several folders of good information. Included in that information were several printed threads from F2000.com. I thought it was interesting to see that some of the same people were discussing some of these same rules changes even back then.

I am curious how that rule accomplishes anything but reducing safety, considering ANYTHING that provides impact or intrusion resistance would have to be mounted structurally. And it's vague, because any frame panel of any material will provide stiffness and structural function of some magnitude That seems to be the best route to protectionism - don't write clear rules from the beginning, but rather make them ambiguous, so you have a door to shut on your competitor once they interpret them differently.

It looks to me like that rule is there to help make sure that people understand what is part of the chassis and what is not. I think that understanding of what constitutes the chassis of the car is consistent back to the 2012 GCR.

An email from one engineer does not set the standard for an industry that employs millions,

No, one email from one engineer does not set the standard. But, an email from a subject matter expert on materials and their naming conventions, standards, and certifications who is employed by the organization that does set the standards is an excellent place to start. This is not just some random person who pays their ASME dues.

in the same way an email from manager@usps.gov does not speak for the entire US government.

non-sequitur. The ASME expert does not speak for an industry, but he is intimately familiar with how a term is used in industry.

And throughout engineering you can find examples of "nonferrous" describing non metals, so what the term should mean in daily use is subjective and will depend on which engineer you decide to email.....

You continue to make claims with absolutely no proof to back them up. It leaves me in the impossible position of trying to prove a negative. Please prove your statements.

You claim that you can find examples of nonferrous throughout engineering. You have actually already done this with something on bridge corrosion in Missouri. If you look hard enough you might find more.

I argue that the word nonferrous is used almost exclusively to reference nonferrous metals. Here is my proof:

This is a link to a google scholar search on the words nonferrous and non-ferrous. I don't know how many pages deep you would have to go to find a peer reviewed article that uses non-ferrous to describe anything but a metal. I was completely unable to find one that did, but I lost patience so there might be one in there. I focused on abstracts, as those are most readily available and provide an excellent high level view of what the article is about.

Google Scholar search for "nonferrous"

Google Scholar search for "non ferrous"

I like to think that I am reasonable at using Google for finding things, so I used some other search terms to try to narrow my results to a refereed journal article that might use nonferrous to describe something like carbon fiber.

Google Scholar search for "nonferrous"+"carbon fiber"

Google Scholar search for "nonferrous"+"plastic"

Google Scholar search for "nonferrous"+"composite"

Can anyone help me with other search terms that I should be using?

Since Rob managed to find his Missouri bridge corrosion article, I borrowed some words from that article and used them as search terms.

Google Scholar search for "nonferrous+polymer"

I actually thought I might have something there. But no, it appears that there are metal polymer composites that use aluminum to form a composite and that is the reason for the use of the word nonferrous. Foiled again.

Google Scholar search for nonferrous+"fiber-reinforced"

Finally. I found something. Another article in a civil engineering journal about concrete used nonferrous to describe composite concrete reinforcement.

After that, I give up. The overwhelming majority of references to nonferrous in the canon of engineering publications use nonferrous to describe only metals.


I'm done with journal articles, so as suggested by Nathan, I will research what the American Society of Mechanical Engineers(ASME) and the American Society of Materials(ASM) think. I am adding ASTM(formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials) since the expert from ASME suggested them.

Here is a search of the ASME webpage for the word nonferrous. I find nothing that uses that term to reference anything but metals.

Google Search of ASME.org for "nonferrous"

Here is a search of the ASM webpage for anthing referencing nonferrous or anything else that I could come up with.

Google search of ASM webpage for "nonferrous+composite"

Google search of ASM webpage for "nonferrous"

And Finally ASTM

Google Search of ASTM webpage for "nonferrous"

There is a link to an ASTM article search that the stewards did in the ruling from the stewards that I posted earlier.

After all of that, I am very confident in saying that the standard in the engineering industry for the word nonferrous to refer to metals. Somehow I doubt that even that will stop the conspiracy cries.

It doesn't even really matter. The SCCA has said what non-ferrous means under the 2012 GCR. It's crazy that I am the first person to bother to ask them.

Therefore, I would propose an interpretation based on language and logic

You have no idea how much I wish that you would propose such a thing.

I believe dictionaries are used to define "standards"

No, that is just wrong. So wrong that I am not sure what to say to it. There is not a single engineering industry standard that has ever been set by Merriam Webster. You should really do some research on what standards are and how they are set.

much more than single emails from individuals.

I still think that asking experts is a good place to start. Trying to characterize an expert opinion as a single email from an individual is disingenuous.

In fact, this is the only published standard of the term non-ferrous I could find. Your email is not an official published standard. It's an email.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonferrous
Definition of NONFERROUS1: not containing, including, or relating to iron

2: of or relating to metals other than iron

I reference engineering industry groups and publications, you quote the online merriam webster dictionary. Damn. Also, you misuunderstood the word "standards" again.

Below is the 2012 rule.... The floor extends to the only bulkhead on or near the main roll hoop. The fact they use the term "main hoop bulkhead" and "rear roll hoop bulkhead" interchangeably should tell you all you need to know.

The SCCA disagrees with you that the main hoop and the rear roll hoop are the same thing under the 2012 GCR. That is decided and not up for debate. Your claim that rear roll hoop and the main roll hoop are the same is as meaningless as my opinion. I will admit that I was surprised by that opinion, but I certainly see their point.

Can you show us a "rear roll hoop bulkhead" other than the main hoop bulkhead shown?

I can show you a roll hoop that is in the rear of the main hoop. See the attached photo. I believe that the rear roll hoop would be considered a bulkhead without the need for a skin applied to it. Front bulkheads are considered bulkheads even though they are just a tube structure. I have less sympathy for Nathan on this one. He was told that his interpretation was contingent on that being the rear roll hoop bulkhead. I have always read that as a warning from the Stewards that he should really get a compliance review on his rear roll hoop bulkhead location. Why didn't he?

[Wren]

I am curious about one part of this discussion. The Radon has a main roll bar that is of an alternative design that has been signed off by a registered PE and has been approved by the SCCA. How can it be defined as illegal when the rear most tubes are essentially braces and added structures for the main roll hoop?

This is conceptually no different than many other cars that also have 2 rear hoops IMO so please define why it is supposedly illegal.

You posted while I was replying to rperry. I think that I answered some of that in there.

I have no reason to believe that their roll hoop design is illegal. It is a double hoop construction. It is their floor that is illegal. They have more than 1" of deviation from the rear roll hoop bulkhead to the front bulkhead.

However I will say that the way the main roll hoop bends forward to the floor pan is a very creative solution that, I suspect, does not create any real advantage for the Radon. However this part of the design has been approved by the CoA.

I don't think that Radon ever got a ruling on the location of their rear roll hoop bulkhead. The ruling on their floor was contingent on that being an acceptable rear roll hoop location.

Here is what the stewards had to say when they ruled on the Radon floor in 2010.

it is clear that the under tray conforms to the maximum one inch curvature rule, if and only if it is agreed that the rear roll bar bulkhead is in fact established by the base of the bent roll bar tubing. The compliance review scope was not defined to look at the compliance of the roll bar design, but only the under tray. With that said, the proposed RN 10 under tray design is compliant with the 2010 GCR.

I have always read that as a warning that the rear roll hoop bulkhead is not where they thought it was, which appears to be true.

It is interesting to me that the interpretation of the COA makes the SCCA rules on side impact protection the same as the FIA rules on side impact protection. I think that adds some credibility to their interpretation.

I agree that the Radon needs work to be legal for 2013 but I think this can be easily done without breaking the bank.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

I think the same thing. I know it will be easier under the 2013 rules than the 2012 rules.

Finally, I think the existing Radons should be allowed to race as is.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on that. We have a catch all class for cars that don't meet the requirements for any other class, FS. I don't think we should allow people to dictate which class their car will compete in. It is entirely reasonable to lay open the rule book and make people compete in the class where their car fits.

[Jnovak]

Thanks for your clarification on the roll hoop issue Wren. I had mis-understood one of your previous posts.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[rperry]

I can think of three places off of the top of my head.

1. FC construction rules GCR 9.1.1.B.1
2. General construction rules GCR 9.3.36
3. March 2013 Fastrack ruling on the 2012 GCR

1.) 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).
--Carbon is prohibited for stress bearing chassis panels, but by the GCR a panel may not be a chassis panel depending on how it is mounted....
2.)
3.) Yes, a March 2013 ruling. An after the fact clarification/change. An addition to the rules that was not previously there.

So, we need to come up with something for non-ferrous that meets this standard. Your definition takes non-ferrous to mean everything on the planet that is not made up of at least 50% iron, including things like air and chicken.

Yes, it does, because that is how language works. Flesh or water or chicken do not contain substantial iron, and are thus non-ferrous. Now that is so obvious, that saying non-ferrous becomes superfluous, which is why cookbooks don't call for non ferrous chicken. It would sound goofy if they did, but it wouldn't be factually incorrect. In fact, ALL chicken, air, and carbon fiber is non-ferrous by nature, so people tend to omit the non ferrous part. This casual omission has no bearing on the fact that carbon fiber ultimately is non ferrous by virtue of not containing iron.

Metal alloys are far more likely to contain iron, so often you see non-ferrous used to differentiate between those that do and don't. All your google searching proves that people use ferrous/nonferrous a lot when describing metals, but none of them prove that carbon fiber isn't non ferrous.

The fact is, carbon fiber is not ferrous and does not contain iron. That's such clear fact that most people won't need to say non ferrous carbon, but the fact they choose not to does not negate that fact.

On the subject of GCR consistency. The phrase "non-metallic" is used 28 times to refer to components made of materials like carbon fiber or plastics. "non-ferrous" is never used to refer to those things.

So there are two conclusions from that:
1.) plastic contains iron
2.) plastic does not contain iron, but this was so clear that it didn't need to be stated

No, one email from one engineer does not set the standard. But, an email from a subject matter expert on materials and their naming conventions, standards, and certifications who is employed by the organization that does set the standards is an excellent place to start. This is not just some random person who pays their ASME dues.

Great PR spin on "email from one person." You can talk it up as much as you want, but it's the opinion of one person communicated through email. It is not an official standard of any professional organization. Stop trying to pass it off as an industry standard, and there will likely never be one do to the all encompassing nature of a term like nonferrous.

Trying to characterize an expert opinion as a single email from an individual is disingenuous.

A single email from an individual is exactly what it is. But I'm glad you have finally backpeddled from "industry standard" to "expert opinion."

It looks to me like that rule is there to help make sure that people understand what is part of the chassis and what is not. I think that understanding of what constitutes the chassis of the car is consistent back to the 2012 GCR.

The rule is there to make the radon impossible to modify and nothing else. Without this rule, the carbon parts would simply be replaced by aluminum ones. This rule insures that no real safety panels can ever be installed on an FC, as any safety panel would have to be mounted structurally.

I can show you a roll hoop that is in the rear of the main hoop. See the attached photo. I believe that the rear roll hoop would be considered a bulkhead without the need for a skin applied to it. Front bulkheads are considered bulkheads even though they are just a tube structure. I have less sympathy for Nathan on this one. He was told that his interpretation was contingent on that being the rear roll hoop bulkhead. I have always read that as a warning from the Stewards that he should really get a compliance review on his rear roll hoop bulkhead location. Why didn't he?

Are you saying the rollhoop is illegal based on your interpretation of bulkhead? The rear rollhoop ends at shoulder level, and does not have stressed skin construction. You are saying the floor should be defined by a point at shoulder level? Huh?

Common sense will show in the following image that there is only one bulkhead that could ever reasonably define the floor:

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...1&d=1362092124

[Daryl DeArman]

Are brackets part of the frame? The pickup points certainly are. Here is the GCR definition of pickup point.

Pickup point (Suspension) – The location of attachment of a suspension
component on the frame or structure of the car. Pickup point is also
referred to as "pivot axis."


Take a look at the section of the FF rules that allow non-ferrous brackets.

d. Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission,
suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels, may be non-ferrous, of any shape, and
attached to the frame in any manner.

Wren, I'm interested in hearing your logic on this one.

Pick up point definition clearly states "ON" the frame or structure of the car. You seem to be interpreting "ON" to mean an integral part of such as a point on a line.

Then we move to the definition of brackets and it clearly says "brackets such as suspension pickups" may be "attached to the frame" in any manner. Attaching part "a" to part "b"...two distinctly unique parts.

How do you rectify those two? Non-ferrous/Ferrous aside...

[reidhazelton]

This whole ferrous non-ferrous thing is stupid. I worked in the aerospace industry and asked a few of the guys I worked with if non ferrous pertained to non-metals. They all said no, it is a basic way to differentiate metals in to two types.

The SME at ASME said the same. Rob, your analogy of asking to postman about their opinion on the government is not the same thing. COA asked a SME at the organization that helps define industry standards, not the night watchman at ASME as your postman analogy would suggest. To put your government analogy correctly as it relates to this case, that would be asking a sitting member of the Supreme Court their opinion of a simple law, not the postman.

The ASME gave their extremely unbiased, expert opinion through a SME on something that is very, very simple. The COA does not need to survey all the SMEs at the ASME to arrive a the definition of non ferrous in an engineering context.

To me, it seems everyone but one person (Nathan) knows what non ferrous means, I assume he did as well but was looking to stretch that definition to suit his desires. Quite a few times it says carbon fiber is prohibited in the GCR, and it seems that was overlooked when he found the non ferrous wording and tried to contort that to his own definition. To me, that seems like hunting for a self fulfilling prophecy until you find it, and when you find something that confirms what you want to believe to be true, you ignore everything else and cling to that one thing. He was wrong, it happens, move on.

[rperry]

The prohibition of carbon fiber in the construction of the frame applies to brackets used to attach components to the frame.

Doesn't the bolted together bell housing on the Citation, which uses stress bearing panels, violate this section? It's as much a part of the chassis as the shock mount tray on the Radon. And what about suspension mounting brackets bolted to the frame with fasteners closer than six inches? If they are exempt from this section because they are brackets, then why wouldn't the Radon shock mount also be exempt?