FC/ FF rules passed 12 / 0

[Wren]

The only ruling against the Radon for 2012 is the politically motivated and perverse definition of nonferrous.

According to the dictionary definition that you posted, they are using a dictionary definition of the word nonferrous. Get over it.

Was it Richard Pare who proposed these rule changes? Isn't he an owner or investor of a competing manufacturer?

It is just irresponsible to say something like that. It has been posted on here over and over and over where it came from. One person from the 2011 FSRAC even broke down who on the FSRAC had an involvement in any kind of race car business at all.

It has also been posted on here over and over that Richard Pare is neither an owner or an investor in a competing manufacturer.

This is a pretty good summary of what I frustrates me about the conspiracy claims. No one has given a shred of proof about a conspiracy and even when people try to allude to the conspiracy, they do it with information that is untrue.

[tstarke4]

Who is rperry and why does he care?

[Wren]

http://www.radonsport.com/?page_id=205#

[rperry]

According to the dictionary definition that you posted, they are using a dictionary definition of the word nonferrous. Get over it.

The interpretation is illogical considering how often nonferrous metals is used. It relies and is essentially justified by a single person's opinion.

I also want to correct an assertion that has been made several times in this thread: that the radon could just replace Carbon with aluminum to be compliant for 2013. That comes from the following rule, which is terrible for FC safety. I guess banning the Radon was more important than driver safety.

"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 essentially bans any effective cockpit safety panels.

This is a pretty good summary of what I frustrates me about the conspiracy claims. No one has given a shred of proof about a conspiracy and even when people try to allude to the conspiracy, they do it with information that is untrue.

My only recollection was that Pare proposed the last set of rules changes. And I know very little about Citation, except what is written on what looks like their website? That's where my question comes from.

http://icpcitation.com/companyhistory.htm
If citations website is true, that makes me suspicious.

[rperry]

Who is rperry and why does he care?

I designed the aerodynamics of the car, and also the bodywork shape/styling. I do not hold a stake in Radon however.

I am curious who Wren is, and why he cares as well. I always found it strange that he posts SO frequently about the Radon and took such a personal effort to seek clarifications. I remember possibly reading somewhere that he builds most of the parts for one of the other FC chassis. Would be nice if he could clarify. My memory could very well be off.

[tstarke4]

Ok. I still don't understand why you are passionately and persistently defending the car.

[S Lathrop]

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?

I posted the 2009 rules just for your benefit. The Radon is illegal under those rules.

I assume you are not familiar with how an SCCA protests proceeds and how evidence is presented and adjudicated. A better approach for you would be to take the rules as posted hear and build a logical argument as to why they do not apply to the Radon. Then present that argument here for all to review.

You are entitled to your opinion as to the legality of the Radon. Nathan built the car and the people who advised him felt they could get the design past the Court of Appeals for the SCCA. The COA has the final word on things like this.

Nathan did get COA rulings on questions he asked. And he got rulings on those questions. But the car was never subjected to an adversarial protest where the really tough questions would have been asked and ruled on. I am absolutely certain that if the Radon were protested at some place like the SCCA Run Offs, the protesters would prevail.

Your work is not being questioned here. Nathan chose to test the frame construction rules and he has recieved a little push back.

[rperry]

Ok. I still don't understand why you are passionately and persistently defending the car.

I want to see the car compete. I know how it compares in a wind tunnel, but that's not the same as it driving. I also think the rules changes and clarifications have not been sincere or maybe even had conflicts of interest.

[tstarke4]

I too would like to see the car compete. Unfortunately, the first time I saw one on track it was on fire in the Boot at Watkins Glen. I have owned, driven and prepared numerous F2000 cars including a National Championship winner , and multiple Pro winner. Had the Radon been the smashing success it was expected to be and had it not had this cloud of conformity over it, I might well have bought one, in spite of the fact that the Radon is far to nice for Schwietz to sit in.

Your tortuous use of conversational logic isn't helping to change my opinion.

[alangbaker]

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?

I'm sorry, but a ruling on the 2012 rules that comes out in 2013 means the car WAS illegal in 2012, not that it was MADE illegal.

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.

In the context of automotive engineering (and different disciplines DO have specialized usages for ordinary English words) the term is being used completely properly. "Nonferrous" means metals.

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.

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.

And plastics are "non-metallic", not "nonferrous" in this context.

You provided a single anecdote sent by email. No conclusive proof of any kind.

He provided an interpretation by an expert in the appropriate field.

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.

The objective evidence is that "nonferrous" is almost NEVER used to describe anything except metals that don't contain iron.

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:

You seem unnecessarily vehement about this. Do you work for Radon?

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.

The replacement couldn't be mounted structurally on centres closer than 6" to avoid the stressed panel rule, but that doesn't preclude every method of designing and affixing a replacement.

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.

Anyone who sees three bulkheads in this image has let their agenda trump their logic:

I don't feel qualified to comment on that subject, but I would wonder about a "bulkhead" that has a bend in it.

[Wren]

The interpretation is illogical considering how often nonferrous metals is used. It relies and is essentially justified by a single person's opinion.

Actually they are using a dictionary definition that you posted. Hardly illogical

I also want to correct an assertion that has been made several times in this thread: that the radon could just replace Carbon with aluminum to be compliant for 2013. That comes from the following rule, which is terrible for FC safety. I guess banning the Radon was more important than driver safety.

I honestly don't know if this rule would prevent using an aluminum bracket to replace the shock mount or not. I know it would not preclude using a welded in tube for the shock mount. I would encourage you guys to get some outside help with interpreting and understanding rules.

My only recollection was that Pare proposed the last set of rules changes.

wrong

And I know very little about Citation, except what is written on what looks like their website? That's where my question comes from.

http://icpcitation.com/companyhistory.htm
If citations website is true, that makes me suspicious.

The history of Richard involvement in Citation has been put here before. The only involvement Richard has with the cars is making diffs for the FB cars. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other parts that he makes for the cars.

I am curious who Wren is, and why he cares as well. I always found it strange that he posts SO frequently about the Radon and took such a personal effort to seek clarifications.

I've made it clear in the past who I am and what I do.

I have also already explained in this thread why I sent in a rules clarification. Reading is fundamental.

I remember possibly reading somewhere that he builds most of the parts for one of the other FC chassis. Would be nice if he could clarify. My memory could very well be off.

Does it matter?

[rperry]

I've made it clear in the past who I am and what I do.

Ok, what is that? I heard (like 2 years ago) that you make most machined citation parts, but let me be clear that I'm not claiming or saying you do, just asking.

Does it matter?

Your clarifications were instrumental in the legality of the radon, so I think it does matter, and it helps the transparency of the rules process. Disclosure certainly doesn't do any harm, which is why I did as soon as I was asked.

This is an unrelated analogy, and I'm not drawing parallels or making conspiracy claims. But if for example everyone on the COA next year magically becomes a Radon investor, and then the rules are changed to give the Radon advantages, people would probably say what those people do, or who they are associated with, matters. Or if I sat on the COA now, and the rules changes required carbon panels instead of banned them, people would also say it mattered.

[tstarke4]

Is more likely to be on the COA.

[Wren]

Here is what i wrote the last time I was asked:

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...2&postcount=35

[S Lathrop]

I want to see the car compete. I know how it compares in a wind tunnel, but that's not the same as it driving. I also think the rules changes and clarifications have not been sincere or maybe even had conflicts of interest.

I think it has been on the track for 2 seasons and will race next season, in the series that really counts.

[R. Pare]

The car was made illegal by efforts made after the fact in 2013.

Sorry, but if you would actually spend some time reading the 2012 rules ( or even the all the earlier rules), you would realize that the car doesn't even conform to those. You and the Radon crew may think so, but that only shows their inability to read what is actually there in front of them.

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.

Hilarious! The alu/steel/kevlar side panels rules have been in place for 25 years, both here and in most of the rest of the world. The composite panel rules - almost an exact copy of the FIA requirements - were added in 2012, not 2013 I can think of many ways of mounting such panels to frames that would add zero to near-zero to the frame structure, yet maintain all of their side penetration protection capability.

The Radon can't even pass the 2012 and earlier side panel and chassis construction rules.

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.

Anyone who sees three bulkheads in this image has let their agenda trump their logic:

Anyone who DOESN'T see that there are three bulkheads as defined in the GCR has let their agenda trump their logic.

Please try sticking to things that you actually know something about - the GCR most certainly ain't one of them.

[a. pettipas]

Who is rperry and why does he care?

I designed the aerodynamics of the car, and also the bodywork shape/styling. I do not hold a stake in Radon however.

I am curious who Wren is, and why he cares as well. I always found it strange that he posts SO frequently about the Radon and took such a personal effort to seek clarifications. I remember possibly reading somewhere that he builds most of the parts for one of the other FC chassis. Would be nice if he could clarify. My memory could very well be off.

Shouldn't the protagonists in this thread have started with the getting-to-know-you exchanges 88 000 posts back?

[Brandon Dixon]

This is an unrelated analogy, and I'm not drawing parallels or making conspiracy claims. But if for example everyone on the COA next year magically becomes a Radon investor, and then the rules are changed to give the Radon advantages, people would probably say what those people do, or who they are associated with, matters. Or if I sat on the COA now, and the rules changes required carbon panels instead of banned them, people would also say it mattered.

It is a related hypothetical. Do you have any idea who the people are on the COA? Are you seriously questioning their motives and/or bias? Dragging the integrity of these *volunteers* through the mud is a bad idea.

[dc]

it's obvious that now everyone is arguing semantics and the definition of non-ferrous among other things. The truth lies ONLY in the execution of the GCR and and the words that the CoA have instituted for the rules.

The rules seem to have been fairly straight-forward for more than a couple of years now, though many seem to be interpreting them the way they want to see them for their own benefit. The only way this is resolved will be with an actual hard and fast protest.

Arguing the definition of words doesn't solve anything. No one is willing to see that they might not be right in this issue. Until a protest is made and an SCCA official deems the car legal or illegal in its entirety, nothing will be solved volleying insults at one another.



If this thread continues down this path, I will have no choice but to close it down. The personal insults and ad hominem attacks need to stop, or we will be doing more than just locking up what once was a very informative thread.





Please proceed with care and caution.

[rperry]

I can think of many ways of mounting such panels to frames that would add zero to near-zero to the frame structure, yet maintain all of their side penetration protection capability.

The rules prohibit the panels serving structural purpose:

....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.

An impact panel can't be mounted with hopes and dreams or with magnets. The nature of it needing to transfer full impact loads to the main chassis structure means that such panels will HAVE to be mounted structurally. Even if they are installed and intended for anti-intrusion only, they will by nature serve a structural purpose.

If the SCCA wants to prohibit carbon panels, despite their lower cost and greater safety, then I guess that's their directive. But the provision above seems to serve no purpose. I don't see how it makes the class safer, more affordable, or improves racing.

It is a related hypothetical. Do you have any idea who the people are on the COA? Are you seriously questioning their motives and/or bias? Dragging the integrity of these *volunteers* through the mud is a bad idea.

I am saying people with stakes in other manufacturers have a suspiciously high presence in these rules changes and clarifications. If the changes were innocuous or didn't affect any one manufacturer more than another, then there wouldn't be any suspicion. But the rules not only ban one chassis, but they carefully make sure not to affect any existing chassis and make sure the Radon can never be made compliant without effectively redesigning the whole car.

If you look back on the rules revision history of the class - better yet just rules proposal history - there is a massive peak in activity weeks after people found out about the Radon's construction, with people with financial stakes in the competition behind them. That's highly suspicious to me.

Of course those with ties to another manufacturer will claim they are doing this for the good of the class, or out of benevolence, that the timing is just coincidental, and that the radon banning is just collateral damage in achieving a decades long dream of outlawing panels. It's up to members to decide if they believe that or not.

[tstarke4]

I would like to apologize for dragging Sponge Bob into this mess. For this ad Porifera attack I am imposing a 24 hour self-ban.

[S Lathrop]

If you look back on the rules revision history of the class - better yet just rules proposal history - there is a massive peak in activity weeks after people found out about the Radon's construction, with people with financial stakes in the competition behind them. That's highly suspicious to me.

You might interpret things that way. But as I told you, the Radon was not legal under the rules in effect at the time it was designed. The most important fact I would point out to you is that no one had tried to build a car as Radon did, using composites in the construction of the frame. That is not because we were stupid.

I was a member of the 1986 rules committee as was Ralf Firman and many others. David Bruns was the major contributor to the rules that the Radon has chosen to ignore. This battle over frame construction predates the 1986 rules by over a decade. The fastening rules for sheet metal panels and the prohibition of composites containing carbon were a response to the battle them. The Radon and the subsequent rules clarifications are simply a reaffirmation of that fight and a fresh statement of the principals that have always governed FF/FC.

You, Nathan and the rest of the Radon supporters simply attempted to circumvent the long established principals of the tube frame classes. Your revolution was not successful. Get over it.

There are several people posting here who have been in similar situation of the Radon and have had our heads handed to us by the rules makers. Many of us can point to the sentences we have caused to appear in the GCR. We all fixed our designs and got on with winning races.

[racerdad2]

I do hope this thread remains online. As a beginner, I had no idea how complicated FC was & is. I was overwhelmed. This thread has answered so many questions. Now, I'm encouraged & excited about working on our car. Rules have been clearly stated. Driver protection has been a primary concern. Now, fabbing & mounting my own side anti-intrusion panels will be ez. The rules are really straight forward... Thx to all !

[racerdad2]

IMHO. I believe this sums it up for me. FC is for metal fabricators. Now, to brush up on my brazing, welding, metal bending, shearing, cutting, drilling & last, but not least, finger pinching, burning & bleeding

[DaveW]

You might interpret things that way. But as I told you, the Radon was not legal under the rules in effect at the time it was designed. The most important fact I would point out to you is that no one had tried to build a car as Radon did, using composites in the construction of the frame. That is not because we were stupid.

I was a member of the 1986 rules committee as was Ralf Firman and many others. David Bruns was the major contributor to the rules that the Radon has chosen to ignore. This battle over frame construction predates the 1986 rules by over a decade. The fastening rules for sheet metal panels and the prohibition of composites containing carbon were a response to the battle them. The Radon and the subsequent rules clarifications are simply a reaffirmation of that fight and a fresh statement of the principals that have always governed FF/FC.

You, Nathan and the rest of the Radon supporters simply attempted to circumvent the long established principals of the tube frame classes. Your revolution was not successful. Get over it.

There are several people posting here who have been in similar situation of the Radon and have had our heads handed to us by the rules makers. Many of us can point to the sentences we have caused to appear in the GCR. We all fixed our designs and got on with winning races.

Excellent summary. You captured the essence of the frame construction history and this thread in one brief post!

[rperry]

You might interpret things that way. But as I told you, the Radon was not legal under the rules in effect at the time it was designed. The most important fact I would point out to you is that no one had tried to build a car as Radon did, using composites in the construction of the frame.

I was a member of the 1986 rules committee as was Ralf Firman and many others. David Bruns was the major contributor to the rules that the Radon has chosen to ignore.

Look, this is more than just carbon construction, though that is the first issue. I think the interpretation of nonferrous is politicized garbage, but whatever.

The issue I am pointing to now is the prohibition of panels all together (not just carbon ones). Previously the limitation on structural reinforcement using panels was the six inch rule. That was proposed by David Bruns back in 1986 and has served well for over 25 years, and the Radon abides by it. Why was it removed? The SCCA wants to ban carbon... ok, but what was wrong with the 6 inch rule?

My theory: this new provision (quoted below) was added so that Radon could not simply replace all their carbon with aluminum.

Now, fabbing & mounting my own side anti-intrusion panels will be ez. The rules are really straight forward... Thx to all !

How will you mount them in a way that abides by the rules? Previously, you would do this by mounting the panels per the 6 inch rule. But now, any structural mounting is illegal.

A safety panel has to transfer all of its load to the frame. And that means the frame can transfer all of its load to the panel. That gives the panel a clear (and illegal) structural purpose, even if it wasn't installed for that reason. This rule applies to all panels - not just composite ones.

EDIT: this is the rule I am referring to:

"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."

[Northwind]

How will you mount them in a way that abides by the rules? Previously, you would do this by mounting the panels per the 6 inch rule. But now, any structural mounting is illegal.

A safety panel has to transfer all of its load to the frame. And that means the frame can transfer all of its load to the panel. That gives the panel a clear (and illegal) structural purpose, even if it wasn't installed for that reason. This rule applies to all panels - not just composite ones.

EDIT: this is the rule I am referring to:

Hmmm,

I laminated the required amount of Kevlar to the inside of my bodywork.

[racerdad2]

rperry. I believe the test is this... My frame must behave equally, with or without the panels. I understand your argument. I intend to fasten mine mechanically per previous posts on the GCR per FIA. If this new rule makes them illegal, then I will have an illegal car. I want my car as safe as possible, practical & still fast... I have no doubt that after my first year or two, my desire to go faster will begin to outweigh my concerns for my safety. As a beginner, I fully intend to push my limits on test days. I will experience spins, run-offs, off-track excursions, BEFORE my first race. The only thing I want to 'practice' during my racing is 'race craft'. Hopefully, I'll practice 'crashing' on my own...

[Jnovak]

Composite anti-intrusion panels that use carbon fiber materials ARE ALLOWED. Here is the 2013 GCR rules from FF-FC updated March 2013.

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 - 265 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.

My comment on the above section(3). Carbon panels are clearly ALLOWED. Stop saying that they are not.

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 bulkhead.

Alternatively, 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.

f. No other exterior panels (excepting body work) shall be permitted in the area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the forward most bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. 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.

my comment on the above bolded section. The rules clearly define in section 4 that the 2 different allowed attachement methods are the DEFINITION OF NON STRUCTURAL methods of attachment. Obviously the current attachement method of the Radon panels are within the above definition if the number of fasteners is ruduced to 8.

Additionally ANY panel that is attached in ANY WAY will add some structural stiffness to the car period. The SCCA knows this and it is my personal opinion that the concern from the SCCA WRT to the Radon chassis is that the driver side bay (hip upper body area) is COMPLETELY open to the side except for the composite panels. I am sure that they think that this is an attempt, by Radon, to circumvent the rules to create a functionally stiffer chassis than may be possible with a tube only frame.

My suggestion is that a single diagonal tube be welded into that open side bay that connects the lower roll bar joint to the frane rail to the upper top corner of the open bay. This will be an easy fix and will, I think, solve your problem.

I am not arguing with you, I am trying to help you solve the problem. I have been an SCCA member for 45 years and I have also had my share of problems with rules interpretation. May I respectfully suggest that you attempt to work to fix the problem as opposed to what is currently happening?

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Marshall Mauney]

How will you mount them in a way that abides by the rules? Previously, you would do this by mounting the panels per the 6 inch rule. But now, any structural mounting is illegal.

A safety panel has to transfer all of its load to the frame. And that means the frame can transfer all of its load to the panel. That gives the panel a clear (and illegal) structural purpose, even if it wasn't installed for that reason. This rule applies to all panels - not just composite ones.

Hmmm,

I laminated the required amount of Kevlar to the inside of my bodywork.

I've always wondered about this, too. It would seem that the only thing these panels can effectively protect against is a sharp object penetrating the panel. It would also see that any legal mounting scheme (like the bodywork laminate mentioned above that I've seen on several cars) won't really give much in the way of structural protection, as the protective panel will just move with the intruding object long before any significant energy has been transferred to the frame. The only other option is to loosely attach it to the frame (i.e., tie wraps)......but is that what we want?

In truth, don't the Radon guys have a point that solidly affixing an anti-intrusion panel to the frame would give better protection to the driver? Whether or not CF is allowed is another discussion, but it would seem to me that we might be better served to allow a semi-structural anti-intrusion panel within a certain area of the frame. Yes, it would open the door to some "interesting" implementations that might significantly impact structural rigidity......and that might be OK.

Somebody tell me if I'm missing the point of how these panels do their intended job in an accident.

[Edit: Jay's post clarifies a lot of this, and leaves me wondering why the body-laminate method would be considered acceptable - should it be?]

[rperry]

I've always wondered about this, too. It would seem that the only thing these panels can effectively protect against is a sharp object penetrating the panel. It would also see that any legal mounting scheme (like the bodywork laminate mentioned above that I've seen on several cars) won't really give much in the way of structural protection, as the protective panel will just move with the intruding object long before any significant energy has been transferred to the frame. The only other option is to loosely attach it to the frame (i.e., tie wraps)......but is that what we want?

Well said.

Jay, my problem is why should cars need to be modified, at huge expense, to meet this new provision? In my opinion, rules changes should improve safety, increase or level competition, or reduce costs. All I see is removing the competition, and a significant decrease in driver safety.

People with a financial stake in Radon's competition pushed through a rules change that replaces "mounted on 6" centers" with "mounted with 8 bolts of 1/4" diameter." What does this accomplish? Why did this need to be written? I know it benefits radon's competition, and forces Radon out of the game. But what benefit does it have to the average SCCA member?

[Wren]

Anyone who sees three bulkheads in this image has let their agenda trump their logic:

Per the GCR, there are required to be three bulkheads in that picture.

An impact panel can't be mounted with hopes and dreams or with magnets. The nature of it needing to transfer full impact loads to the main chassis structure means that such panels will HAVE to be mounted structurally. Even if they are installed and intended for anti-intrusion only, they will by nature serve a structural purpose.

Jay provided the relevant information below. The GCR gives mounting methods for side impact protection that are basically the same as they have been for years or borrowed from the FIA.

This thread has been primarily discussing the panel that also serves as the shock mount. Are you arguing that the shock mount is a safety panel?

I think that you are missing the important section for a shock mount. You keep referring to the panel section, but I think that you should be looking at the bracket section, 9.1.1.3.h.

Brackets are permitted for the exclusive purpose of mounting
components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension pickups,
clutch and brake components. They shall be metal. Brackets shall
not be used to otherwise reinforce the frame. Composite and/or
non-metal bellhousings are prohibited.

I think that the GCR allows for Radon to put in some kind of aluminum bracket to mount the upper shock ends. I don't think that it allows for the shock mount bracket to be a 3' long piece of aluminum that reaches from the front bulkhead to the dash bulkhead, but it allows for some kind of bracket. Paying for a ruling on your design would probably be a good idea.

Every other manufacturer in the class has managed to find a method to mount their shocks without using enormous pieces of carbon fiber or aluminum. I am confident that Radon will be able to do the same.

I am saying people with stakes in other manufacturers have a suspiciously high presence in these rules changes and clarifications.

No, they don't. This accusation has been around for years and still isn't true. A minimum amount of research will keep you from making false accusations.

From a member of the 2011 FSRAC, where the most recent rules revision originated:

http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=105

Dennis, there are quality pictures of the Radon frame in there also.

No member of the FSRAC involved in the process has a stake in another manufacturer. One person from the 2011 CRB has a stake in a vee manufacturer. I don't think any of the BOD who voted for this have a stake in a manufacturer.

The clarification came from the stewards and the court of appeals. I don't know any of them, but I doubt that they have an interest in a manufacturer.

I have read the letter that Nathan sent to the BOD which is full of all kinds of incoorect claims, outrageous accusations, and conspiracy theories. None of this is going to engender any sympathy for the Radon plight.

people with financial stakes in the competition behind them.

no

that the radon banning is just collateral damage

The Radon was not banned by the 2013 rules, it was never compliant to any FC rules that have ever existed in the SCCA.

Jay, great post.

[Wren]

I
[Edit: Jay's post clarifies a lot of this, and leaves me wondering why the body-laminate method would be considered acceptable - should it be?]

Yes. Laminating the kevlar to the bodywork is fine.

Jay, my problem is why should cars need to be modified, at huge expense, to meet this new provision? In my opinion, rules changes should improve safety, increase or level competition, or reduce costs.

Cars should not have to be modified at all. This is not a new rule. The side impact rules are not new for 2013.

People with a financial stake in Radon's competition pushed through a rules change that replaces "mounted on 6" centers" with "mounted with 8 bolts of 1/4" diameter."

No. It is frustrating to hear something that is just completely incorrect. Over a year ago the SCCA adopted the FIA side impact protection rules. Before that point there was no provision for using carbon fiber for side impact protection. Reference the compliance ruling that Nathan got in 2010.

When the carbon side impact protection rules were brought in, they were never allowed to be mounted on 6" centers. Anyone who did this was never compliant.

The financial stake comment? Damn.

[rperry]

The rules changing from "mounted on 6" centers" to "mounted with 8 bolts of 1/4" diameter." What does this accomplish? Why did this need to be written? I know it benefits radon's competition, and forces Radon out of the game. But what benefit does it have to the average SCCA member?

The 6" rule was in place and did a great job for 25 years. Why should radon re-design their entire car at great expense for this arbitrary change?

How can anyone provide real cockpit protection without adding at least some stiffness to the frame?

[Wren]

The rules changing from "mounted on 6" centers" to "mounted with 8 bolts of 1/4" diameter." What does this accomplish? Why did this need to be written? I know it benefits radon's competition, and forces Radon out of the game. But what benefit does it have to the average SCCA member?

The 6" rule was in place and did a great job for 25 years. Why should radon re-design their entire car at great expense for this arbitrary change?

You are making more claims without backing them up. You need to produce the rule set that allowed for composite panels to be mounted on 6" centers.

The rules allowed for kevlar reinforced body to be mounted on 6" centers and it still does.

You are asking why the rules were changed from something that they never said to something that they have said since the allowance for composite panels. Your question cannot be answered.

[rperry]

You are making more claims without backing them up. You need to produce the rule set that allowed for composite panels to be mounted on 6" centers.

The rules allowed for kevlar reinforced body to be mounted on 6" centers and it still does.

You are asking why the rules were changed from something that they never said to something that they have said since the allowance for composite panels. Your question cannot be answered.

My question is independent of material, so not sure why you are bringing carbon up. You are dodging my point though.

Panels mounted to the frame used to be considered as adding excessive stiffness to the frame (stress bearing) if they were mounted on less than 6" centers. Now, for 2013, that 6" rule, which served effectively for 25 years, has been eliminated. Why? And what is the benefit to the membership base?

[reidhazelton]

How can anyone provide real cockpit protection without adding at least some stiffness to the frame?

Did you not read Jay's post? I am sure he spent a fair amount of time in effort to add his points to the conversation, and it seems you choose to ignore anything that is contrary to your initial opinion. It is getting old to see nearly every post be ignored and the same questions and accusations repeated over and over.

The reality of it simply is not what you state.

There really is no point in debating this topic when one side keeps saying the same things over and over despite others disproving those things. Making up your own "facts" is not debating, that's politics.

BUT...on to a question that I think is very valid and want to ask myself:

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.

Like many have said, it seems easier for the Radon to compete now (as Jay described a great and easy way of doing) than it did under any other FC rule set. If the objective was to ban the Radon then that objective was certainly missed.

[rperry]

Did you not read Jay's post? I am sure he spent a fair amount of time in effort to add his points to the conversation, and it seems you choose to ignore anything that is contrary to your initial opinion.

I did read his post. His suggestion is to weld in a diagonal tube. Not a bad idea at all. However, that doesn't affect the panel legality - the panels were designed around the 25 year old rule of 6" mounting being acceptable, which was arbitrarily changed. Why?

And why should anyone have to redesign a car over an arbitrary provision that reduces safety?

Over a year ago the SCCA adopted the FIA side impact protection rules.

That's funny. Carbon panels mounted by the FIA method would massively stiffen the frame and thus be illegal.

I'll ask you again: how do you have effective impact panels that don't stiffen the frame? Why was the long standing definition of "stiffen the frame" changed from 6" mounting, to 8 bolts?

Answer: because the radon was designed around the 6" rule.

[reidhazelton]

And why should anyone have to redesign a car over an arbitrary provision that reduces safety?

Because it is not, was not, and never was legal. You can not do build something any way you choose just because it is safer, or claimed to be.

It is far more than just the simple 6 inch rule as to why those are not legal.

[rperry]

Because it is not, was not, and never was legal. You can not do build something any way you choose just because it is safer, or claimed to be.

It is far more than just the simple 6 inch rule as to why those are not legal.

You are wren really like to skirt this issue, which has NOTHING to do with the material of a panel. Let me ask it again.

Why was the 6" rule eliminated??? What's the benefit to drivers?