Radon photos

[nulrich]

John:

If I understand your logic correctly, then in order to abide by the rules I need to have a copy of every GCR since 1986, cross-reference that with every change in the last twenty-five years, and make sure I comply with every possible interpretation in all those documents?

In all the GCRs I've read (admittedly not all 25 you say I need) I don't see any language specifically allowing bolted-together bell housings in contradiction of the rules preventing stressed-skin construction. By your logic they are illegal.

I also don't see any rule specifically allowing brake balance bars, data acquisition systems, remote canister dampers, HANS devices, cockpit-adjustable anti-roll bars...shall I go on?

The tube frame is legal per the GCR, and greatly exceeds the load requirements required for "alternate" roll cage construction WITHOUT the cockpit protection panels. It meets the minimum requirements spelled out in the GCR except for the minimum bend radius on the roll hoop, but is MUCH stronger. The design has been reviewed, analyzed and approved by a registered engineer per the requirements in the GCR. I guess I didn't realize someone had given you all the drawings and specifications of the tube frame (with or without the protection panels) sufficient for you to determine its strength.

I have a PhD in mechanical engineering and have designed many highly stressed structures in the last twenty-five years, and I can tell you our chassis is much safer in any conceivable accident than any existing FC car. You may not be aware, but our cockpit safety cell is surrounded by crash protection as much as allowed by the GCR. We have a full carbon/epoxy nose that is designed specifically to absorb frontal impact, a carbon tail cone/impact attenuator, and carbon radiator inlet ducts with side impact attenuation tubes built in.

Nathan

[Mike Foschi]

If it's inside the cockpit and forms the interior surface of the cockpit it's a cockpit interior panel. Whether it is mounted inside or outside the tube frame is irrelevant.


Nathan

So, today, I put sheetrock on the outside of the studs for a new room I'm building in my house. My wife gave me the WTF look and I explained that this is the way all of the smartest people in the world are now doing it.
The outside is actually the interior now. She asked me "how the hell are we going to hang pictures and stuff on the wall?" I told her," hey that's simple, I've got these new, enormous carbon fiber panels at the new bracket store that opened up in town." She told me to rip it down and start over again. Who knew?

[nulrich]

Great example, Mike, that proves my case perfectly!

If you don't add any additional drywall, what forms the interior of the room?

Nathan

P.S. I have a few rooms in my house with drywall only on the outside of the studs. If they succeed in banning our car, maybe I'll have to think about new uses for all the parts.

[RobLav]

If the cockpit protection panels are non-structural, then attach them with something like Dzuz fasteners. Do something like that and remove the carbon, and those panels might fly (be accepted).

[Roger Eade]

Nathan, if you are hanging your hat on the term "Non- ferrous, nonferrous", I think you should get another day job, as has been stated before, apart from those who disagree, this is where "the intent" of the rules come in, plus you would be going against just about every civil engineer in the world over the term non frerrous. IMHO I think you should put the construction of the other 10 chassis on hold, and get one up and running and Homologated, but I'm just a poor boy looking from the outside.
Roger

PS I do like your thinking, and the workmanship looked great, but you do have to prove the design.

[Mike Foschi]

Great example, Mike, that proves my case perfectly!

If you don't add any additional drywall, what forms the interior of the room?

Nathan

P.S. I have a few rooms in my house with drywall only on the outside of the studs. If they succeed in banning our car, maybe I'll have to think about new uses for all the parts.

When I run for President I want you to be my spokesperson. You stay on your message no matter what and you turn things around that people say. Good job.
But...if you got your Phd for the Jeddi mind tricks, it's not working. (These are not the droids you are looking for.) You can keep saying that the outside of the frame is the interior of the cockpit but it just aint working yet. Maybe I'll give Yoda a ring but I think Firman already has him booked for the runoffs.

[Matt M.]

I'm sorry - did somebody say Stout?

Put me down for 5 pints

[John Mosteller]

If I understand your logic correctly, then in order to abide by the rules I need to have a copy of every GCR since 1986, cross-reference that with every change in the last twenty-five years, and make sure I comply with every possible interpretation in all those documents

Through the years some words,paragraphs and sometimes whole pages have been left out of the following years GCR's.Several times I have personaly called the tech dept at national and that is exactly the response that I recieved from them. I have been told that the word,Paragraph etc. was apparently left out but the rules have not changed and that I need to refer to previous GCR's and fastracks.They have stated that just because it is somehow left out of the current GCR doesn't change the rule.

In all the GCRs I've read (admittedly not all 25 you say I need) I don't see any language specifically allowing bolted-together bell housings in contradiction of the rules preventing stressed-skin construction. By your logic they are illegal.

I believe they have allowed those under the nonferrous bracket envelope.

I also don't see any rule specifically allowing brake balance bars, data acquisition systems, remote canister dampers, HANS devices, cockpit-adjustable anti-roll bars...shall I go on?

These type of items that are not car/class specific are covered in the main GCR.

The tube frame is legal per the GCR, and greatly exceeds the load requirements required for "alternate" roll cage construction WITHOUT the cockpit protection panels. It meets the minimum requirements spelled out in the GCR except for the minimum bend radius on the roll hoop, but is MUCH stronger. The design has been reviewed, analyzed and approved by a registered engineer per the requirements in the GCR. I guess I didn't realize someone had given you all the drawings and specifications of the tube frame (with or without the protection panels) sufficient for you to determine its strength.

I am responding to the photos that you posted in the begginnng of this thread as I think most other posters are refering to. When we have asked about the normal tubes not being present you have not corrected these observations.If you do have two forward facing braces in addition to the main frame tubes attached not more than 6 inches from the top of main roll hoop extending to the front roll hoop,or if they do not extend to the front hoop they must have either a brace from their point of attachment to the upper frame tube on to the front roll hoop or back to the main hoop to prevent the collapse of the upper frame tube. the front hoop must have two braces in addition to the main frame near the top of the frame extending forward to protect the drivers legs.It is recommended that they attach to the front bulkhead. If your frame does have these required braces then you have my apology for that non fact based comment.

[Bill Valet]

I'm trying to find a definition in the GCR for the cockpit. I see a section which defines what the bodywork is (all panels external to the chassis/frame and licked by the airstream), but not what defines the cockpit. Is it anything internal to the plane which the tubes form, or is it anything internal to the bodywork? If my shifter and/or roll bar adjustment hangs outside the chassis/frame, is it considered within or outside the cockpit?

Curiosity has got the best of me!

-Bill Valet

[nulrich]

Hi John:

I think there is a big misunderstanding here, and it is probably my fault.

The tube frame shown in the first photo is not complete, the photo was taken while it was still under construction. All the required braces are present in the final tube frame, including the ones required to protect the driver's legs. There is also a full 16 gauge 4130 steel floor welded to the lower main frame tubes from the base of the main roll hoop all the way to the front bulkhead. You can kind of see it in some of the other photos. I'll try to find a photo taken with the complete tube frame by itself.

Nathan

[nulrich]

Nathan, if you are hanging your hat on the term "Non- ferrous, nonferrous", I think you should get another day job, as has been stated before, apart from those who disagree, this is where "the intent" of the rules come in, plus you would be going against just about every civil engineer in the world over the term non frerrous.

Hi Roger:

Well, I always thought civil engineers were a strange breed . Seriously, maybe civil engineers have a different definition, but no mechanical engineer or designer I know would limit "nonferrous" to metals.

Every dictionary I can find online has the first definition of "nonferrous" as "not composed of or containing iron" or something similar. ASME, ASM, USCTI, etc all include non-metallic materials in the term "nonferrous." And, if your definition is correct, that makes all the cars out there with plastic brackets illegal.

As I've said before, if they meant to only allow metals, they would have said "nonferrous metals." It's pretty clear they meant to allow materials other than steel, since there are other places in the rules that limit materials to steel. In my opinion.

IMHO I think you should put the construction of the other 10 chassis on hold, and get one up and running and Homologated, but I'm just a poor boy looking from the outside.
Roger

PS I do like your thinking, and the workmanship looked great, but you do have to prove the design.

In the SCCA homologation does not provide any protection against rules changes or make any judgment as to the legality of a design. We are about to submit homologation paperwork for the first five cars, but they can still ban our car even if it's homologated.

Nathan

[Lee Stohr]

Nathan, Maybe you could replace your carbon panels with similarly shaped aluminum, machined down from giant 6" thick billets. Raise your car price $20K to cover it, then go blow everybody away. Afterward, somebody will start a topic complaining that your overpriced car ruined the class

[Rick Iverson]

The cockpit protection panels provide no competitive advantage. They don't make the car faster or stiffer than a car like the Citation, they simply make it much safer and less expensive to manufacture.

Safer, less expensive, with no copmpetitive edge. I believe this is it, absolutely.

[mark defer]

nathan,
i apologize.
it's all very clear now.
"outside" is "inside". why didn't i see this before?
as i admitted before, i'm just a simpleminded fool. i foolishly always thought "outside" meant "outside".
now....please dont tell me "up" is "down".

mark d
grand poobah of the MDCLI

[Dennis Valet]

I'm trying to find a definition in the GCR for the cockpit. I see a section which defines what the bodywork is (all panels external to the chassis/frame and licked by the airstream), but not what defines the cockpit. Is it anything internal to the plane which the tubes form, or is it anything internal to the bodywork? If my shifter and/or roll bar adjustment hangs outside the chassis/frame, is it considered within or outside the cockpit?

Curiosity has got the best of me!

-Bill Valet

Bill - this is the GCR definition of a cockpit

The driver/passenger volume within a car in which driver control devices, gauges, and seating are provided.

[LenFC11]

So my cockpit adjustable sway bar controler is mounted to the body work of my car facing the interior of the car or what i consider to be the cockpit, but they are inside the frame rails.. does that make them inside the cockpit or outside of car?

i'm a bit large guy, and like many, dont have any other interior panels on my car, the interior of my body work is what defines the cockpit, really what else can de considered interior of cockpit? can't be the frame rails,

nice car

[Bill Valet]

So what defines that volume? The frame rails? The bodywork? Placement of the control devices/guages/seat? Anything that limits the control devices, guages, and seats from being licked by the airstream? This is a pretty vague definition in the GCR, which allows for substantial differences in interpretation.

I'm not arguing the compliance or noncompliance of the radon car. I'm just genuinely curious about this.

-Bill Valet

[John LaRue]

This thread is the perfect example as to why Saturday night stock car/sprint and midget racing thrives (relative to SCCA road racing) and we struggle. Anyone looking in at this and considering whether they want to invest 50k+ in a FF or FC would run for the hills!

My favorite moment from the Clinton presidency was during the impeachment process when he turned the questioning to what the meaning of the word "is" is......

[ric baribeault]

the frame defines the cockpit, not the bodywork which is on the outside. Len, go back to work! Clintonesque semantics. obviously a line parallel to any barrier that restricts movement beyond the cockpit defines the edges of that cockpit

[Larry]

...so my engine and gearbox are in the cockpit?

Larry Oliver

[DaveW]

...
In the SCCA homologation does not provide any protection against rules changes or make any judgment as to the legality of a design. We are about to submit homologation paperwork for the first five cars, but they can still ban our car even if it's homologated.

Nathan

I think "ban" is too strong a word - but SCCA CAN make you change the car to meet the rules, as they are understood.

[Dennis Valet]

You can see where there's room for interpretation under the rule as to what the cockpit is, but I imagine any sane person would interpret "volume of the car" to mean "the volume inside the frame." I know I probably wouldn't be too fond of having my seat located outside of the frame but inside the body work

[BWC54]

the frame defines the cockpit

I don't think there's anything in the GCR defining that.

[Bill Valet]

Not the seat, but your controls (shifter, roll adjustment, switchgear, etc.) may hang outside the frame. Those are within the cockpit under the definition given by the GCR. Lets say my roll adjustment falls 1 or 2 inches outside the plane defined by the frame (or even mounted to the body, as described in a previous post). Is the cockpit volume to include the outermorst part of the roll adjusment? Is that how we're defining the parameters that make up the volume? Or are we just picking an arbitrary solid body (the frame) to define the volume?

The frame/chassis isn't even mentioned in the definition of the cockpit in the GCR. Have we just chosen the frame because that's the easiest thing to pick? Where in the GCR does it limit the cockpit to a volume inside the frame? See how easy it is to interpret these rules differently? It can be VERY confusing to any aspiring car builder to follow these rules.

-Bill Valet

[Bill Valet]

I just wanted to say that I'm in here causing a stir, not because I love arguing. Not because I love pretending to be an attorney, and not because I love getting everyone up in arms. I work for a large safety compliance and certification company. One of our main objectives (behind ensuring safety of all products that are sold to consumers) is to uphold the Standards for which each product falls. Although we can be hard asses and hold products to the letter of the law, we also understand the need for development. We need to make sure we do not stifle inginuity. We have detailed investigations into products which are innovative and either fall into a gray area within the Standard, or fall outside the scope entirely. The industry will never move forward if we do not adapt and change, or even take a detailed look at what we once thought we understood the Standard to mean.

Nathan has built an innovative car. He interpreted the rules differently than all of us. The GCR is also not very clear in many instances, which is what I've tried to point out with my cockpit example. What needs to be done is to let him bring the car to the appropriate people, have them investigate fully and determine if the car meets the letter of the GCR. If it does, great, but there will need to be clarification in the GCR. If it does not, they will make him change his design. But they will also need to take a step back and determine if the GCR should be changed to allow new and innovative thinking. If his design is truely safer and cheaper this will be a great step forward for the class. Who knows, perhaps all he has to do is change the material of which the panels are constructed?

We can't be stuck in 1986 forever, or the class (classes) will be passed by, by both competitors and innovative designers like Nathan.

Sorry for the long rant.

-Bill Valet

[John Mosteller]

Originally Posted by GCR 2010 Appendix F: Technical Glossary
The driver/passenger volume within a car in which driver control devices, gauges, and seating are provided.

Can the driver/passenger occupy the same space as the frame or are they limited to one side or the other?

If the designer says the part is an interior panel then it must be.(who else would know for sure)
Maybe the fabricator forgot to put it inside before welding up the frame and then they couldn't get it inside so they figured it would work the same if it was just bolted to the outside.(its still a interior panel according to the designer)

Its becoming murky as to what this panel really is. If I am recalling correctly the designer first said it was a driver protection panel.When it looked like that wouldn't fly within the rules it became a bracket.Now that it doesn't look like that will be legal it is an interior panel.What will it be next?

If the frame is as strong as it needs to be and meets the GCR specs why not make the piece out of one of the legal materials for driver safety panels(aluminum,steel or kevlar) and go forward.I am all for an additional safety panel,Just make it out of the approved materials.

Also what I said in a previous post about rules being left out of the following years GCR.When it gets pointed out to the national tech person they are reinstated by notification in a fastrack under "errors and omissions" so one most definately need to read all fastracks as well as GCR's.

[Lee Stohr]

John says "Anyone looking in at this and considering whether they want to invest 50k+ in a FF or FC would run for the hills!"

Imagine a manufacturer considering whether to invest 500K+

[ric baribeault]

larry, read the post again. i believe there's a barrier at your back, so the answer is no.

bruce, i don't believe there is, but apparently there probaly should be.

[mblanc]

...... why not make the piece out of one of the legal materials for driver safety panels(aluminum,steel or kevlar) and go forward.

Good question,

AND here's another.


Why aren't there lots of complete pictures being shared ???

[Brandon Dixon]

We have a full carbon/epoxy nose that is designed specifically to absorb frontal impact, a carbon tail cone/impact attenuator, and carbon radiator inlet ducts with side impact attenuation tubes built in.

Nathan

Does the wording in 9.4.5.G permit side impact attenuators and carbon radiator ducts?

[Lee Stohr]

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
How many brackets does a chassis have if you call a gearbox a bracket

[Phil Creighton]

From the 2010 GCR Page 11 without comment
Phil Creighton


1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying 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

[Camadella]

Does the wording in 9.4.5.G permit side impact attenuators and carbon radiator ducts?

I don't see how you could say it doesn't:

9.4.5.G

[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]4. Radiators may be incorporated in impact attenuation structures.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers]

[FONT=Univers]5. Composite impact attenuation structures may incorporate [/FONT][FONT=Univers]carbon and/or kevlar regardless of any class restrictions on [/FONT][FONT=Univers]materials.[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]Since the radiators are mounted in the ducts, and the ducts are part of the impact attenuation structure, and carbon is permitted in impact attenuation structures regardless of any class restriction on materials, then there doesn't seem to even be any gray area about it.[/FONT]


[/FONT]

[Lee Stohr]

"applying the GCR shall be logical"

Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the study of arguments. Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. Logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. The logics discussed above are all "bivalent" or "two-valued"; that is, they are most naturally understood as dividing propositions into true and false propositions. Non-classical logics are those systems which reject bivalence. Friedrich Nietzsche provides a strong example of the rejection of the usual basis of logic: his radical rejection of idealisation led him to reject truth as a "mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short ... metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins"

and so, a carbon panel may or may not be part of the frame, inside might be outside, and some people need to get a life

[dd46637]

Damn. I've run out of popcorn

[Bill Valet]

Poke fun and laugh all you want, but am I the only one who finds it a problem that 30-40 individuals here on apex can't come to a consensus on how to interpret the GCR? How is an aspiring car builder expected to interpret it correctly?

I've said too much already on this subject so this is it for me. Best of luck to Nathan and the Radon boy's. Congrats on putting together a fresh, innovative, and genuinely exciting car.

-Bill Valet

[Camadella]

Poke fun and laugh all you want, but am I the only one who finds it a problem that 30-40 individuals here on apex can't come to a consensus on how to interpret the GCR? How is an aspiring car builder expected to interpret it correctly?

-Bill Valet

I think that we all know, even if we're not admitting it, that it doesn't have a lot to do with the actual car, but instead with the fact that there IS a new car. I suspect that some of the people who have been the most vocal opponents of our new car might even like some of the things we did with it.

The real problem is that there IS a new car, and that we are set up to make them in at least reasonable quantity, in the USA, and for less money than the competition.

It used to be that the pro guys would buy new chassis, and that the used pro chassis would trickle down to the club racer for reasonable money. In 1999 and 2000, Van Diemen came out with a new chassis each year, with each one being better than the last, and the pro guys bought them by the boatload. The used chassis got sold to club racers, and even though the pro series had a lot of entries, there were also a lot of entries at the club level.

That is not the way it is now. The pro guys use the same chassis that they used in 2001. In fact, there aren't more than a couple of chassis running in the pro series that are newer than that. No chassis are trickling down to the club guys, and the club FC races have very few entries. The 2001 chassis are drying up (they're not getting any newer!), it's hard to get a new one, and if you did, it would be just like the old ones.

The people that HAVE 2001 V-D's now have some relatively valuable cars - it's the law of supply and demand. Defer's car has hit everything but the lottery, but it's still worth a fair amount of money, just because there aren't any more of them. These people don't want to see a new car - they've been being competitive with their old one, and they don't want that to change, for both competition and financial reasons.

In addition, many of the folks whom are against the new car have a financial interest in the manufacture or sale of competing cars and parts. Jon Baytos, for example, hasn't been vocal on ApexSpeed, but has been privately calling everyone he knows or doesn't know asking them to write in to ban the new car. Jon's brother, Brad, sells a lot of Van-Diemen parts, and Jon is planning to import the new Mygale, which would be a direct competitor to the Radon. The same is true of the Citation guys, who seem to be some of the most vocal opponents to the new car. Since the club is very small (on a relative scale), some of the folks who have a financial interest in competing cars have a big influence on the rules-writing process as well.

So - I'm not really sure that disagreement is completely about the car, but about the fact that there IS a new car, it MIGHT be faster than existing designs, and it MIGHT change the class makeup and somewhat devalue the existing cars.

The last time I checked, FC was neither a spec class nor a vintage class - but with the new rules proposal, we are certainly leaning in that direction. Racers have built cars to the maximum parameters allowed by the written rules since there has been racing. If you, as a racer, haven't ever come up with a creative thing to do to your car that's completely within the written rules, but MIGHT violate the "intent" of the rules, then you would certainly be in the minority.

Should the new rules proposal pass, I would highly doubt that any new manufacturers of chassis will enter the market. As Lee pointed out, who in his right mind would do that knowing that the old guys with existing cars will make it illegal to run, and therefore impossible to sell. With no new cars entering the market, or only ones that are of existing designs, then the class will become some combination of vintage and spec, if it hasn't already.

If you think that our car doesn't meet the 2010 rules, then have at it. We think that it does, and the protest and appeals procedures that the SCCA has in place can decide for sure. But to change the rules to preempt our car before it turns a wheel is simply not a good thing for anyone.

Chris C.

[John Mosteller]

Brandon they are always going to try to twist the wording to fit their purpose,Never mind that 9.4.5G items 1 thru 5 only pertain to FRONT IMPACT ATTENUATION.They will probably come back with something like our carbon radiator ducts with side impact attenuation tubes built in are located in the front of the sidepods and since the word FRONT is in the description of their location then they are actually front not side attenuators.I would like to see a picture of their attachment to the front bulkhead as required in 9.4.5G item 1 C though.

[John Mosteller]

I probably should not have posted that as they will probable claim that the side pieces that all the fuss is about are hooked to the front bulkhead and therefor part of the front impact attenuator.

[Wren]

I don't see how you could say it doesn't:

Because it is titled "Front Impact Attenuation"

Unless your sidepods are on the front of the car, try again. The radiators they reference are for front radiator cars. I think I see how you guys managed to make so many mistakes that run afoul of the 2010 GCR.

The same is true of the Citation guys, who seem to be some of the most vocal opponents to the new car.

Give it a rest. Richard hasn't had an interest in Citation in a long time. He has been promoting rules changes for longer than you guys have been thinking about building cars. Repeating it won't make it true.

When and where can we expect to see this thing on the track?