The bellhousing is not made of carbon fiber, nor is it considered part of the chassis or frame and is not subject to those section in the GCR B.1 or D.6...right?Originally Posted by rperry
The bellhousing is not made of carbon fiber, nor is it considered part of the chassis or frame and is not subject to those section in the GCR B.1 or D.6...right?
Last edited by reidhazelton; 03.01.13 at 1:23 PM.
In my little pea-brain I accepted Ferrous and Non-Ferrous to apply only to metals and metal alloys before the CoA spoke. Turns out I was "right".
/devils' advocate mode: since the GCR says (paraphrasing) all allowed modications are listed herein, if it doesn't say you can you can't.
Why say someting can be made of any non-ferrous material and then prohibit carbon fiber IF carbon fiber isn't non-ferrous to begin with? It only muddies the waters.
If you google non-ferrous 99.995% of the pages come back with the term "non-ferrous metal", if non-ferrous only applies to metals/metal alloys why add the word "metal"? Doing so implies that without the word metal added to the phrase that non-ferrous applies to something other than metals.
Just because "WE" all knew what non-ferrous meant, or what the rule meant. Doesn't mean that's what the rule said.
I don't interpret "on" to mean an integral part of something. There is no requirement for the frame to be one welded up structure. It is the minimum assembly of the car that meets the GCR definition of a frame. For instance the entire roll hoop on a Van Diemen is a bolted on structure that is still part of the frame. The rule you cited is in the chassis section of the FF rules and issubject to all of the chassis rules. The brackets are the pickup points and have to be part of the chassis. The brackets are just the point on the chassis that the suspension mounts to, they may be a distinct/unique part from the welded tube structure, but they are still part of the frame.
From another point, suspension is defined in the GCR as:
The pickups are definitely not suspension. I don't think that leaves any option but that they are frame.
Does that make sense? Basically "frame" in a GCR sense can mean an assembly of parts.
Interesting point and I know who you got it from as he has made that point on here before. That's nice that you are carrying someone else's water for them. It also fits well in the general defenses of the Radon which have boiled down to, "Look over there, that car is illegal." You do nothing to address the point, you just counter accuse that someone else's car is illegal.
But, I was discussing this point with someone yesterday. If you go back to post #116 of this thread you can read the ruling that the stewards handed down and the COA approved. The stewards decision includes these words:
Now I think that we are getting dangerously close to arguing intent, but I doubt that you are going to have any luck protesting metal brackets with fasteners closer than 6." Don't let that stop you from giving it the old college try though. I would be happy to share any lessons learned that I have from the compliance review process with you to help you negotiate the process.
I have already referenced this earlier in this thread, but it has been a while. This makes a strong case for the argument that the FF/FC rules change/consolidation was needed. The carbon fiber brackets on an FC are illegal from two perspectives, the ban on carbon fiber in the FC rules and the allowable materials for chassis brackets in the FF rules do not include non-metallics. Carbon fiber brackets in FF would only be illegal since the rules only allow ferrous or nonferrous brackets.
The rules had started to contain some weird things like that over the years and bringing them together is certainly the right way to keep that under control. Interestingly, the rule change also makes the rules closer to the FB rules and makes it easier for a chassis to move between FF, FC, and FB. That is probably a good thing.
I will try to sort through your other post later.
Josh may have won the internet earlier but I think the last couple of posts have used up the internet.
1. Whether or not another car has legality issues is not germane to this discussion.
2. No. Because the brackets of the Radon are carbon fiber...
...because brackets are a part of the frame...
...AND CARBON FIBER IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED FOR USE IN THE FRAME.
The suspension mounts to at least one of them, and that means it's a part of the frame. Period.
I see where you are coming from and certainly agree that a frame can be an assembly of parts. We just disagree as to whether or not suspension mounting points (brackets) are part of the frame when they are distinct/unique parts from the welded tube structure and therefore subject to the same rules as "frame" construction.
Robert you are stretching.
The Citation bell housing is composed of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. It is a complex bracket, if you will.
Strange but I can't remember a single FF/FC that has not had a bell housing and with the exception of the Radon and maybe the Lola 440, they have been mostly non-ferrous metal parts.
There are LOTS of FC & FF cars with bolt together bell housings.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
It is correct to say that carbon is prohibited for stress bearing panels, but that does not tell the entire story. Carbon is prohibited in the chassis. Period.
It is not correct to say that how a panel is mounted is what determines if it is a chassis panel. A panel's function determines if it is a chassis panel.
For instance the side impact protection panels are chassis panels that are specifically not allowed to be fastened on greater than 6" centers.
yeah
2.)
It was a March 2013 ruling on the 2012 rules. It was absolutely not a rule change. The 8.1.4 process does not contain any provision for making a rule change and the COA lacks the authority. Rule changes are made by the BOD.3.) Yes, a March 2013 ruling. An after the fact clarification/change. An addition to the rules that was not previously there.
In accordance with the GCR, I asked specific questions about the 2012 FF/FC construction rules and received specific answers applicable to the 2012 FF/FC construction rules. These answers came from the people within the SCCA that have the power to interpret the rules. As a result, we now have a final answer on whether or not the Radon is legal per the 2012 GCR. It is not.
Absolutely nothing was added to the rules and absolutely nothing was decided by the COA that contradicts the previous rulings that Nathan received. Nathan has previously recognized the authority of the COA on this. Do you?
BTW- a clarification has to be after the fact as it clarifies something else that is existing.
Actually, langauge doesn't work like this. When you make such a bold claim, you should back it up with facts. Maybe you could get an expert opinion? I have heard engineers be accused of being overly literal before, but your argument takes that to a new level. Even Nathan didn't try to take it to that level, he appealed to the authority of industry groups. He was just wrong about what those industry groups say.Yes, it does, because that is how language works.
Catfish? Butterfly? Honeymoon?
You continue to make this argument that everything in the world breaks down into two categories. It doesn't do your side any good. There are an infinite number of variations on this and all of them are equally silly. It is not unusual to expect that we use words in the same manner they are used in engineering.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.
You guys missed. It happens.
They don't prove that because it is logically impossible to prove a negative. My google searching certainly proves that it is incredibly rare to see the word nonferrous used to describe anything but metal.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.
You make the claims about the English Langauge and how words are used in engineering. It is up to you to back them up.
For example:
-I claimed that nonferrous is not used to describe anything but metals in engineering and provided proof
-I claimed that the SCCA defines nonferrous in accordance with the way that the word is used in engineering industry and provided proof
You ignore my entire argument about the use of nonferrous in the GCR and come up with that?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
The most immediate fallacy that jumps out is false dichotomy. You present those two options like they are the only choices, when they are not. Again, you aren't doing your side of the argument any favors. You again present nothing to support the idea of your car being legal.
The obvious third option is that the GCR uses nonmetallic to refer to plastics or carbon fiber because that is the correct term for those. It does not use the term nonferrous because that would not be the correct context for the word.
It is an entirely appropriate way to characterize the email from that person. Do you deny any of what they had to say?Great PR spin on "email from one person."
It is not opinion to say that neither ASME, ASM, or ASTM use the word nonferrous to refer to nonmetallics. That has been confirmed by multiple sources. Given that the word is never used in the way that you are trying to use it, breaking down to the "that's just your opinion" argument is not even supported by reality.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.
I didn't backpedal on anything. It was an expert opinion on the industry standard for how the word is used. You intentionally mischaracterized what I said. Again, that is not an appropriate way to make your point.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."
Everything above is a discussion of things that are decided. Nonferrous is limited to metals in the GCR. There is no way around this. No matter how much noise is created, a carbon fiber shock mount was illegal per the 2012 GCR. Radon should have asked the COA for a compliance ruling on this.
At least we are moving into a discussion on things that are not already set in stone.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.
Does it mean that you couldn't just replace the carbon brackets with aluminum brackets? Would it even be a frame exterior panel?
There is always the option of replacing it with a welded in tube.
I didn't say that the roll hoop was illegal at all. Assuming that you used legal materials and a PE signed off on it, then I think that it is legal. Why would you even say that?Are you saying the rollhoop is illegal based on your interpretation of bulkhead?
The rear roll hoop ends at shoulder level. You guys are not the first person to do things that way. Every late model Van Diemen has the roll hoop end at shoulder height. The Ralt FA cars use a bolt on roll hoop as well. I did not say that the rear roll hoop bulkhead ends at that height. The rear roll hoop bulkhead continues along the braces to the floor.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?
Where would you say the rear roll hoop bulkhead is on a modern Van Diemen?
You are using circular logic to try to define the rear roll hoop. You argue that the floor is legal because the rear roll hoop bulkhead is forward of the fuel cell. Then you argue that the rear roll hoop bulkhead has to be forward of the fuel cell because it is the only one that can define the floor.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
The GCR tells us what bulkhead will be used to define the floor. It is not the bulkhead made up by the roll hoop ahead of the rear roll hoop. It is the rear roll hoop.
Because the FF and FC rules kept getting changed independently of each other. It was muddying the waters. But, the result was that there were two prohibitions on the Radon carbon fiber pieces in FC and only one prohibition on similar carbon fiber pieces in FF. None of that is an excuse for the mistake that the Radon guys made. They had two reasons to know better. I'm really glad I don't have to explain that one to their customers.
Actually, if you google nonferrous, the results come back referencing metals. The word metal is often left off. It is pretty common to see things like "nonferrous filler rod" or references to a nonferrous pressure vessel wrapped in a nonmetallic composite. So, it is not correct to say that the searches come back with the term "nonferrous metal."If you google non-ferrous 99.995% of the pages come back with the term "non-ferrous metal", if non-ferrous only applies to metals/metal alloys why add the word "metal"? Doing so implies that without the word metal added to the phrase that non-ferrous applies to something other than metals.
That is a reasonable argument for submitting a clarification. After the March 2013 fastrack, we know what the rule said. No more room for discussion, as evidenced in this thread.Just because "WE" all knew what non-ferrous meant, or what the rule meant. Doesn't mean that's what the rule said.
The absolute bottom line is that the Radon was not legal per the 2012 GCR and the rules change did not make the car illegal.
So far, we have had no arguments in this thread to support the Radon being legal per the 2012 GCR. I think that is noteworthy. We have had discussions of whether or not nonferrous includes chicken in the engineering industry, but we have firm decisions from the COA that tell us that nonferrous is restricted to metals in the 2012 GCR. I posted the decision of the stewards days ago and no one has tried to dispute it.
After years of arguing, discussing, and wondering, we know.
A whole lot of 1's and 0's have been inconvenienced by this thread.
I hate to set something up with only two options in this manner but if something is between the shock and the welded tube structure, I can only image two things that it could be. It is either frame or suspension. I am open to another option, but I don't have enough imagination to come up with something else that it might be.
My DB-6 has the shocks mount to some welded in tabs on the frame. I don't think that anyone would argue that those tabs are not part of the frame. If those tabs were bolted on, nothing would change. They would still be part of the frame. There is no qualifier for method of attachment. If the brackets are welded on or bolted on, they are part of the frame.
Remember that the rules for suspension mounting points are under the frame rules.
Also remember that there is a COA approved opinion on this. It helps cut down on the confusion.
Language and logic
Still trying to wrap my brain around arbitrary conspiracies.
[QUOTE]
Welded on I can see it as part of the frame. Bolted on I can not.
When you bolt the dash panel to the frame does it now become part of the frame or is it still a dash panel?
Stonebridge Sports & Classics ltd
15 Great Pasture Rd Danbury, CT. 06810 (203) 744-1120
www.cryosciencetechnologies.com
Cryogenic Processing · REM-ISF Processing · Race Prep & Driver Development
The dash panel is definitely not part of the frame. That is not part of the minimum configuration neccesary to contain running gear or support the body.
The GCR definition of frame is:
So when you bolt the gearbox onto the frame, does the gearbox now become the frame ?
Edit: Not sure why GCR def didn't get in the quote
Stonebridge Sports & Classics ltd
15 Great Pasture Rd Danbury, CT. 06810 (203) 744-1120
www.cryosciencetechnologies.com
Cryogenic Processing · REM-ISF Processing · Race Prep & Driver Development
No, the gearbox is part of the running gear.
Hmmmmmmmmm...
This thread reminds me of a couple of guys I knew in college - they would get into some discussion similar to this and just for the heck of it, one would arbitrarily take the opposite position from the other, trying to see how far they could push each other before one of them had enough of the "argument" and would give up. Then they would hysterically laugh about the whole thing.
Dave Weitzenhof
[QUOTE=stonebridge20;381187][QUOTE]
Welded on I can see it as part of the frame. Bolted on I can not.
Back in the days when I was a scrutineer I believe the wording "ON" came about because many people were designing sacrificial suspension pick-up points. The early cars had steel tabs welded into the tubing structure and impact damaged the frame/tube where welded. Later designs moved to bolt on aluminum attachment points as the aluminum was softer and yielded earlier than the adjacent steel tube. We all know it is much faster to simply bolt on a new pick-up point versus frame fixturing and repair. Perhaps one of the other old timers can remember this transition of the rules. I think this example may show the intent and continuation for this bracket to be considered part of the frame.
So I can use carbon shock mounts on the back of the car but can't on the front being the gearbox is just a big bracket holding the running gear to the frame?
Stonebridge Sports & Classics ltd
15 Great Pasture Rd Danbury, CT. 06810 (203) 744-1120
www.cryosciencetechnologies.com
Cryogenic Processing · REM-ISF Processing · Race Prep & Driver Development
Except for the sections that say carbon is prohibited, yes.
No, I didn't say anything like that.
The shock mounts are part of the frame on both ends of the car and subject to the same rules.
But I thought the gearbox was running gear and not frame. The rear shock mounts don't even touch the frame.
Stonebridge Sports & Classics ltd
15 Great Pasture Rd Danbury, CT. 06810 (203) 744-1120
www.cryosciencetechnologies.com
Cryogenic Processing · REM-ISF Processing · Race Prep & Driver Development
The rear shock mounts bolt to pickup points, which are by definition part of the frame.
The gearbox is running gear. The parts used to bolt it on are part of the frame.
So the bellhousing is then part of the frame and not running gear??
I have always thought of it as part of the frame.
Confused...
So neither of these can be carbon fiber?
But the shock mounts dont touch the frame. There's a giant piece of mag between them.
I guess I now have to relable my bolts bin. It's now a frame bin.
Stonebridge Sports & Classics ltd
15 Great Pasture Rd Danbury, CT. 06810 (203) 744-1120
www.cryosciencetechnologies.com
Cryogenic Processing · REM-ISF Processing · Race Prep & Driver Development
Carbon fiber panels can't be stress-bearing per the GCR definition of a stress-bearing panel.
Perhaps Google has some fancy algorithms that provide results based on prior pages visited because I get several pages that return "Non-Ferrous Metal" when I simply search "Non-Ferrous".
It's a bracket. Still must be non-ferrous, but it's neither a "frame" nor "suspension", but I'm not likely to convince you of that since you believe all suspension brackets are part of the frame.
What if your front shock absorbers mount to the backside of the dash panel?
Cue laughter in 3...2...
Last edited by Daryl DeArman; 03.01.13 at 8:06 PM. Reason: wrong Cue
They do. There is no longer a "standard" set of search results for a given term.
The rules governing them are in the frame section and they meet the GCR definition for being part of the frame. It seems like this bother you.But the shock mounts dont touch the frame. There's a giant piece of mag between them.
I guess I now have to relable my bolts bin. It's now a frame bin.
Yes, but they cannot be part of the frame at all.
They do. I have used multiple computers and I have google analytics turned off for speed, the results remain the same. Google or Google scholar?Perhaps Google has some fancy algorithms that provide results based on prior pages visited because I get several pages that return "Non-Ferrous Metal" when I simply search "Non-Ferrous".
The rules for the bracket are in the frame section. They meet the GCR definition for frame in multiple ways. You haven't presented any argument that they are not frame.It's a bracket. Still must be non-ferrous, but it's a neither a "frame" nor "suspension", but I'm not likely to convince you of that since you believe all suspension brackets are part of the frame.
You are unlikely to convince me because there is a published SCCA COA ruling on this and you haven't done anything but give your opinion. Neither your opinion nor mine matters at this point.
OK I have pretty much stopped reading all of these posts. Boring, boring, boring. Just remember the part that says:
The use of carbon fiber and/or Kevlar reinforcement, titanium, beryllium, metal matrix composites, ceramics, high strength composites and similar materials is prohibited unless specifically permitted. The use of the word "unrestricted" in any section does not indicate the allowance of these prohibited materials.
e. The area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the front instrument/dash roll hoop bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead shall be protected by at least one of the following methods to prevent the intrusion of objects into the cockpit. Panels may extend to the forward most bulkhead, but must otherwise comply with these regulations.
1. Panel(s), minimum of either .060 inch heat treated aluminum (6061-T6 or equivalent) or 18 gauge steel, attached to the outside of the main frame tubes.
2. Reinforced body, consisting of at least two layers of 5 ounce, bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame. (5 or more layers are highly recommended.) For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than 6 inch centers. The steel tubes used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material.
3. Flat composite panels of uniform thickness and construction attached to the outside of the main frame tubes. Shaping of these panels to conform with the outer perimeter of the main frame tubes is permitted. Carbon fiber is permitted; however, it must be used in conjunction with another "anti-ballistic" GCR - 259 9.1.1. Formula Car (FC/FF) Category Specifications FCS type material (e.g., Kevlar, Zylon, etc). Such material shall be at least 1.5mm (.060 inches) in thickness not counting the carbon fiber.
4. Composite anti-intrusion panels shall be attached with no more than eight fasteners per side. Fasteners shall be AN or superior grade of not more than 0.25 inch diameter. Two flat or countersunk Mil Spec or SAE washers of no more than 1 inch diameter may be employed with each fastener. Ten fasteners per side are permitted if the panels extend to the front bulkheadAlternatively, FIA mounting is permitted as follows: One panel shall be permitted per side. It shall be fastened to the frame at its extreme corners, the upper, lower, forward and rearward edge halfway between the corners, and halfway along each diagonal tube. The attachment should consist of an 8mm U-bolt and an aluminum plate 3mm thick, 20mm wide and 12mm longer than the U-bolt span. Panel mounting must comply with one or the other above prescribed methods. It may not be a combination of the two.
Sorry to say it guys bit these are the rules as of today. It simply does not matter what was allowed in 2010. The rules SPECIFICALLY state:
D. A non-compliant ruling will be published; a compliant ruling will not be published. Court of Appeals decisions on technical compliance are effective for the calendar year during which they are rendered, and are superseded by the following year’s edition of the GCR.
I suggest that you make your cars fit these rules. I personally know about this as the rules changed for me in March 2006 and I CHANGED the cars to comply with the new rules.
Shut up and race (as they say in NASCAR LAND. I think I am done with this thread.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
Last edited by Jnovak; 03.01.13 at 9:33 PM.
Hoo boy!
I'll add in some thoughts for you to mull over - everyone for the most part has veered off on to tangential arguments and has missed the most important points:
( This will all relate to interpreting the 2102 rules, but also relate to the 2013 interpretation methods for ANY of the classes)
1 - Each section of the rules - chassis, suspension, bodywork, etc - has statements about materials that are allowed or not allowed. Those statements sometimes cover ALL of the items described in that section (depending on how it is worded), regardless of whether or not the item is considered a "part" of the generic section heading - eg - in the Chassis rules, brackets are mentioned and therefore controlled by the Chassis section, meaning that they are also controlled by whatever generic allowances or restrictions are stated for the Chassis section as a whole (it does not matter whether a suspension bracket is "part" of the frame or not - the bracket materials are still controlled the allowances or restrictions as stated in the Chassis rules section). The only way the GCR lets you allow a material for a specific purpose that has otherwise been banned in that rule section is to mention that material specifically. The CF ban in the Chassis rules covers ALL items described in the Chassis section, and can be over ridden for an item ONLY by stating specifically that CF is legal for that item.
2 - Dual hoop designs have by definition and design 2 hoops - with one being the "forward" hoop, and the other the "rear" hoop. One will be the Main Hoop, and will be defined primarily by the material used (as defined in the requirements for formula car Main Hoops). It can reside in either position, but not both. Which position gets chosen to be the Main Hoop is critical when determining the legality of the floorpan and the fore-aft coverage by the side intrusion panels - the GCR states that those 2 items are related to the rear Hoop, NOT the Main Hoop.
3 - Compliance reviews are allowed to only address the specified item or concept. A design concept can be declared legal for the subject or rule definition asked about, but can still be illegal if it also performs another function illegally.
4 - Compliance review rulings are good only for the calender year they are issued.
That is all I will add to this debate.
The GCR defines the frame as:
And there's an end to it.
If a bracket is necessary for the suspension to be connected to the car, it's part of the frame. No "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s.
[QUOTE]
Bother me? Not a even a tiny bit. I actualy wasn't even thinking very hard about what I was typing. I was just entertaining myself by trying to mess with you a bit.
After 30 years in this game I gave up paying attention to SCCA rules. Too much crap for an $8 trophy. I went vintage racing and it lowered my blood pressure 20 points.
Last edited by stonebridge20; 03.02.13 at 12:49 AM.
Stonebridge Sports & Classics ltd
15 Great Pasture Rd Danbury, CT. 06810 (203) 744-1120
www.cryosciencetechnologies.com
Cryogenic Processing · REM-ISF Processing · Race Prep & Driver Development
The car was made illegal by efforts made after the fact in 2013. Funny how much of your time you have put into crusading against the car too. Did you race against the Radon in 2012? Own an FC? Or let me guess, you are fighting for rules that limit safety for the good of the class?
Based on a dishonest interpretation of the term nonferrous. A politicized perversion of English. Does the COA have the authority? Yes. Are they using it properly? No.As a result, we now have a final answer on whether or not the Radon is legal per the 2012 GCR. It is not. Absolutely nothing was added to the rules and absolutely nothing was decided by the COA that contradicts the previous rulings that Nathan received. Nathan has previously recognized the authority of the COA on this. Do you?
Firstly, I never said the whole world breaks down into two categories. But when it comes to "containing iron" (ferrous) or "not containing iron" (nonferrous), everything in the universe falls into one of those categories. They have to - the two are mutually exclusive.You continue to make this argument that everything in the world breaks down into two categories. It doesn't do your side any good. There are an infinite number of variations on this and all of them are equally silly. It is not unusual to expect that we use words in the same manner they are used in engineering.
They don't prove that because it is logically impossible to prove a negative. My google searching certainly proves that it is incredibly rare to see the word nonferrous used to describe anything but metal.
And funny that - according to you and the universal dictator on standards at the ASME you emailed - nonferrous only applies to metals, when there are so many instances of the term "nonferrous metals."
They ARE the only two options. Plastic either contains iron, or it doesn't.The most immediate fallacy that jumps out is false dichotomy. You present those two options like they are the only choices, when they are not.
You provided a single anecdote sent by email. No conclusive proof of any kind.For example:
-I claimed that nonferrous is not used to describe anything but metals in engineering and provided proof
-I claimed that the SCCA defines nonferrous in accordance with the way that the word is used in engineering industry and provided proof
Yes, I do. nonferrous is used to describe non metals, and nonferrous metals is used quite often as well. There is no universal standard on this until those terms disappear from professional publications. In the absence of an official standard, we have to default to the meaning of the word.It is an entirely appropriate way to characterize the email from that person. Do you deny any of what they had to say?
You are being blatantly dishonest. First you called it an "industry standard," and now you have backpeddled to it being "an OPINION on an industry standard." Maybe if you weren't so excessively wordy you would remember the things you have written. See for yourself:
Any aluminum replacement would be illegal as it would have to be mounted structurally - you sure as hell can't mount a SAFETY panel with tape. That is completely unfeasible and the rules writers deliberately included this rule to make sure of that. It serves no other purpose, and actually reduces the safety of the class by making all safety panels illegal under structural concerns.Does it mean that you couldn't just replace the carbon brackets with aluminum brackets? Would it even be a frame exterior panel?
There is always the option of replacing it with a welded in tube.
I argue that there is only one rear/main/whatever bulkhead on the radon, and it's pretty clear from the picture, based on location, construction, and the providing of separation between the cockpit and everything aft of the cockpit. You know, the actual purpose of a bulkhead.You are using circular logic to try to define the rear roll hoop. You argue that the floor is legal because the rear roll hoop bulkhead is forward of the fuel cell. Then you argue that the rear roll hoop bulkhead has to be forward of the fuel cell because it is the only one that can define the floor.
Anyone who sees three bulkheads in this image has let their agenda trump their logic:
-Robert
Such a clever way to avoid the 1" floor pan deviation... Looks bogus to me, IMHO... Now, we argue the 'letter of the law' & the 'intent of the law'....
"An analog man living in a digital world"
HEY JAY !
Thx for the anti-intrusion rules posting. Now, I know how to fab & mount mine ! I do appreciate this thread & the GCR's posted. It has saved me a ton of time wading thru them on my own
"An analog man living in a digital world"
You and I would both do well to take Jay's advice. He has accomplished far more in motorsports than you or I ever will.
At least we can agree that the car is illegal per the 2012 GCR.
I submitted my compliance review in 2012. We were discussing it on here in 2012. I'm not sure why the publication date matters to you. We would have gotten the same results in 2010 or 2011.
I did not make the car illegal; the COA did not make the car illegal; the stewards did not make the car illegal. The rule book made the car illegal. The car was always illegal. Just because we found out right before the rules changed doesn't matter. That is a reflection on Radon not bothering to listen to the warnings they were given and actually find out if their car was legal. Just because the car ran very few club events doesn't mean anything.
It didn't take much time at all to prove the car is illegal. Nathan posted the information on here and was warned by people about the assumptions he was making. But, I was certainly tired of listening to all of the vague conspiracy claims. I hope that this will put most of them to bed. There is absolutely no proof of it. I think it is just noise to distract the people who accidentally bought $100k FS cars.
I received invitations from 3 different Radon owners to protest their car. There have been claims that they would listen to the SCCA and COA. I am curious if they are actually going to do that. I guess we will see.
Yes, I own an FC, not that it would matter at all for whether or not the the Radon was legal.
Can someone explain (or better yet show visually) the difference between the RFR and Radon raised floors?
Here is Mike explaining how the RFR chassis works
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...9&postcount=51
Basically, where the Radon has bodywork to meet the reference area rule, the RFR has a frame.
The only ruling against the Radon for 2012 is the politically motivated and perverse definition of nonferrous.
And the rules were re-written for 2013 to make sure that the radon can never be made compliant. In fact, because of a rule whose only intent was to outlaw the Radon, no real safety panels can ever be legal in FC. Bravo to the rules writers for that one.
Was it Richard Pare who proposed these rule changes? Isn't he an owner or investor of a competing manufacturer?
-Robert
There are currently 34 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 34 guests)
Posting Permissions
