Reynard FCs will be illegal in SCCA

[Wren]

Just call me Art.

If so... then in Paragraph B.2. of the FC Chapter; Where in the hell did "Kevlar reinforcement is permitted." come from? Looks like a new rule to me. Can't find anything like that in the 2010 GCR. Bogus

Hasn't Kevlar has been allowed in all bodywork for a while (don't know how long). D.8.f

I don't see how that doesn't apply to FC.

Unless you just spent a few hundred grand building a new car)

You can have something ruled legal for $300.

On most FC cars (not Tatuus nor Carbir) there are longitudinal tubes that extend back through the engine bay and attach to an aluminum or magnesium bulkhead commonly known as a bellhousing. But it is obviously a chassis bulkhead.

The bellhousing is a bracket for mounting the suspension and the gearbox. I wouldn't say that it separates any compartments, which is required for something to be classified as a bulkhead. As a bracket the bellhousing may be non-ferrous, but carbon fiber is prohibited

The definition of bracket has gotten rather tortuous as you can see on the back of DSR and FB cars and on bellhousings everywhere.

[Purple Frog]

To try to answer Tim W's question:

Does this also eliminate ceramic wheel bearings?

D.9 suspension

Suspension is defined as the system of springs, shock absorbers, control arms, links, mounts, etc., supporting the vehicle on its axles. Sway bars, sway bar links, steering components, wheels, etc., are not considered as suspension in this section.

All suspension components shall be of steel or ferrous material, with the exception of hubs, hub adapters, hub carriers, bellcranks, pivot blocks, bearings, bushings, spring caps, abutment nuts, mounts, shock absorber caps and nuts. Titanium and carbon fiber and other non-metallic composites are prohibited in any suspension component.

It doesn't say anything about wheel bearings... but it does say bearings. And it could be argued they support the vehicle on its axles. Is ceramic a non-metallic composite, or a ceramic? Clear as mud.

What really troubles me most about this paragragh is the two uses of the word "etc." Those are not clarifying words. More like open barn doors. Maybe wheel bearing fall under one of those "etc". Don't worry though, so many guys have them, surely they will grandfather them in.

[FONT=ArialMT][/FONT]

[Purple Frog]

Wren,

If the bellhousing is not a bulkhead but a bracket at the rear end of the longitudinal frame tubes, then an non-ferrous thing-a-majig at the front end of the same frame tubes that holds master cylinders, suspension, shocks... (think Reynard or Citation) must be a bracket, not a bulkhead.

See a problem with your explanation? Not fair to use one logic at one end of the car, and another logic at the other end.

I think a layman would say that a bulkhead is something that is transverse to the frame tubes holding them in position. If so, a bellhousing is a bulkhead. OBTW, a bulkhead that defines the rear of the engine compartment.




Also, if Kevlar was allowed in bodywork, it wasn't worded as being allowed in any section covering wings. Richard added that in red in the proposal. Now... I know you don't want to now consider wings as bodywork... Because you know you can't have passages letting air through that isn't for engine cooling.

[Dennis McCarthy]

Ron is correct, time to quit tiptoeing....

Once again some back room shenanigans are at play by a small group of people.

Why the need after all these years for a rules "rewrite"

If there was a need, before any new proposals, why not query actual

members what rules they are uncomfortable with and what changes they feel need to be made.

At least have balls enough to put the real reasons up front.

It would have been much simpler to suggest a simple rules change to:

1(a) No Radons need apply.

[John LaRue]

Tim Wise pointed out an issue concerning bearings. There was apparently an error in publishing and Dave Gomberg has suggested that this be pointed out.

I believe that the words "other than those" should be stricken from D.b in the General Restrictions section. This would apply to ALL bearings not otherwise addressed in the rules.

[Purple Frog]

Probably a innnocent timing error. Documents submitted before other decisions were made, etc. This is not a sneaky ploy dropped in by flat black helicopters.

In the September 2010 Fastrack, aluminum calipers with unequal piston sizes was approved to move forward for FC.

"the recommended rule in the July Fastrack for FF/FC brake calipers is amended to remove

the restriction that all pistons in a given caliper must be of the same size."

Richard's new proposal specifies they must have equal piston sizes:

a. Maximum of 4 pistons allowed per caliper. All pistons in a given caliper must be of the same size. Calipers must be ferrous or aluminum alloy.

(Afterall he has been a strong proponent for equal sizes.) So, if his proposal passes, does it negate the new ruling?

We need to know what we are voting on.

Details, details....

I did grow to like my 9th grade English teacher... by the time i got to college.

[VehDyn]

Hopefully the FB rule for calipers will be adjusted to be similar to the FC rule if they allow differential bore calipers.

[Wren]

In the September 2010 Fastrack, aluminum calipers with unequal piston sizes was approved for FC.

aluminum calipers were absolutely not allowed by the September fastrack. All that they did was revise a rule that is being proposed. Scroll up to the next page and you will see that the section heading is "suggested rules" and that they are asking for member input.

Is that where this confusion is stemming from? Do you think that Richard's rules are already approved?

Hopefully the FB rule for calipers will be adjusted to be similar to the FC rule if they allow differential bore calipers.

God, I hope not. Some people have already spent insane amounts of money building their brakings systems to the rules that we have now and to go and allow in the F3 brakings systems would be really, really wrong. FB cars are already braking in half the distance that FC cars are using. Exactly how short do you want to make the braking zones?

It was stupid to allow in aluminum calipers in the first place for FB.

[Wren]

Ron is correct, time to quit tiptoeing....

Once again some back room shenanigans are at play by a small group of people.

Why the need after all these years for a rules "rewrite"

If there was a need, before any new proposals, why not query actual

members what rules they are uncomfortable with and what changes they feel need to be made.

At least have balls enough to put the real reasons up front.

It would have been much simpler to suggest a simple rules change to:

1(a) No Radons need apply.

bull****.

The personal accusations have gotten completely out of control.

Richard Pare has been proposing rules rewrites for FF and FC for years. If you haven't seen that, then you haven't been paying attention.

Radon built a car that isn't legal under the 2010 GCR (and isn't even close to legal). Trying to blame this on Richard is damage control. Hopefully Richard's proposed rules will keep someone from making such an expensive mistake again.

[Purple Frog]

After a brief flurry of posts by a few of us folks on the forum that are willing to discuss these things in the open, without gunfire i may add, interest in this issue will putter out and the real wheeling and dealing will go on behind the scenes by those that do not risk tarnishing their reputations by writing on forums.

I can assure you the phone lines are just a buzzin'.

I hoped to point out that the new proposal falls short of truly clarifying the rules, and is just another patch on an existing quilt of confusing rules.

Read the 2010 GCR, read the proposal. Do not fall into the trap of assuming it was written in the rules a few years ago and it is still there. Read the words.

Form an opinion and send it up through the proper channels.

But... don't protest my Reynard front bulkhead next year. Because you should now know that it is really only a bracket.

[Dennis McCarthy]

bull****.

The personal accusations have gotten completely out of control.

Richard Pare has been proposing rules rewrites for FF and FC for years. If you haven't seen that, then you haven't been paying attention.

Radon built a car that isn't legal under the 2010 GCR (and isn't even close to legal). Trying to blame this on Richard is damage control. Hopefully Richard's proposed rules will keep someone from making such an expensive mistake again.

Sorry Wren that is your opinion, but not everyone shares that opinion.

I have been funding and racing several FC's here in the NER for several years now and have been at numerous SCCA functions and meetings and with the exception of the Elan manifold issue, I don't recall being queried about the need for a FC rules change.

I've also spoken with several other FC drivers in the NER today and they have not been privy until now of any proposed rule changes either. How about before any rules changes are attempted the comp board reaches out to existing car owners and competitors first. After all we are the club aren't we?

Over the years the club has made bad decisions because there was a lot of behind the scenes dealings. Remember FranAm? How about FSCCA? Many of the issues involved with both of those fiascos would have never happened had their been a bit of sunshine on those deals.

Frog makes a good point in that if this were about cost containment why not address aero costs. We went to the runoff at Topeka and Road America, we know what was spent on the aero stuff. No mention of them in the rules rewrite anywhere is there?

I'm glad Steve O opened the dialogue about hybrid cars because that is really what the issue at hand is all about.

[Brandon Dixon]

How about before any rules changes are attempted the comp board reaches out to existing car owners and competitors first. After all we are the club aren't we?

It is my understanding from reading Fasttrack that this is precisely what the CRB is doing. Aren't they seeking member input at this point?

[Dennis McCarthy]

No Brandon, the difference is they are seeking input after the fact and only on a rule that has been proposed.

[Wren]

No Brandon, the difference is they are seeking input after the fact and only on a rule that has been proposed.

That's exactly what the process is and it has worked like this for a long time. I've written in with proposed rules rewrites also and you are certainly within your rights to do the same. They rarely go off on their own and randomly decide to rewrite rules.

If you don't like the process, then you can write in a proposal for a rewrite of the section of the GCR that lays out how these things work. Or, I guess you could just bitch about the proposal and make things up about people.

They received a proposed rule, sent it through the FSAC for consideration/editing and are now submitting it for member opinions. If you weren't paying attention, they do this with all of the other rules also. They did it with the Honda engine if you want to look at the most recent big change. Most of the proposed rules are little minor things that just don't cause a big controversy like this has.

There seems to be some confusion over what is going on here. These are not rules that have already been approved and that we are all going to have to live with next year, these are rules that are out there for member input.

Sorry Wren that is your opinion, but not everyone shares that opinion.

No, Richard has been proposing things like this dating back to the old F2000.com days. That isn't opinion.

I've also spoken with several other FC drivers in the NER today and they have not been privy until now of any proposed rule changes either. How about before any rules changes are attempted the comp board reaches out to existing car owners and competitors first. After all we are the club aren't we?

So you want to take away the right of members of the club to follow the process we have in place for rules changes? Nice.

Over the years the club has made bad decisions because there was a lot of behind the scenes dealings. Remember FranAm? How about FSCCA? Many of the issues involved with both of those fiascos would have never happened had their been a bit of sunshine on those deals.

Nothing to do with the case at hand. This is getting the appropriate amount of sunshine according to the process we have in place. Exactly what do you think is out of line?

Frog makes a good point in that if this were about cost containment why not address aero costs. We went to the runoff at Topeka and Road America, we know what was spent on the aero stuff. No mention of them in the rules rewrite anywhere is there?

I just did a quick find on page of the September fastrack and nothing is in there about cost containment. I'm not sure why anyone would bring that up?

Don't like the aero rules? I guess you again have the option of bitching about it or following the process and writing in a rules proposal to fix it. Richard just showed you how to propose a rule in line with the GCR processes. I think I see which option you are going to take though.

[Steve Demeter]

What is done is done.

The proposal is before the CRB.

If you like or dislkie it, it is your duty to inform them and your director.

IMHO, Richard does not have a dog in this fight as the last car he built was about 10 to 15 years ago.


And he is a stand up guy. If anyone doubts that I suggest you talk to him and get the real facts behind all the goings on.
He and Steve have split off the car building part and Richard has no involvement with it.

And he told me that in fact the Reynard front bulkhead was defined by Adrian Reynard and the powers that be at the time to be the tube connecting the lower frame rails.

Note that the current GCR does not require a full 4 sided steel bulkhead. It just saya a bulkhead.

The casting is a big bracket, that happens to also contribute significantly to the strength and safety of the car.

[Dennis McCarthy]

Wren you should have been a lawyer....

I'm fully aware of the processes in place and please,
it's not my intent to "take away" anyones due process.

I do however own 3 FC's and have an opinion, my letter will go to the board.

[dc]

Unless I am mistaken, the RFR is also not legal as well. This doesn't appear as just a Radon issue.

Am I the only one here who doesn't see how anyone who is responsible for these rules benefits in ANY way? I don't think Richard has made a car in over 5 years, has he? Didn't ICP sell the Citation end of the company, or am I mistaken?

I seem to remember hearing discussion of this long before I ever heard of Radon. Isn't it possible that the Radon development has finally brought light to the efforts made by Richard Pare, and made the SCCA take note of the issues at stake?


Forgive my litany of questions, I just fail to see truth in the conspiracy theories.

[Rennie Clayton]

Am I the only one here who doesn't see how anyone who is responsible for these rules benefits in ANY way? I don't think Richard has made a car in over 5 years, has he? Didn't ICP sell the Citation end of the company, or am I mistaken?

Doug,

I suspect the issue is not so much conflict of interest, but whether or not the impending Radon + Firman introductions were the direct trigger for this particular rule submission to the SCCA, and whether this is essentially a pre-emptive banning of "new" technology.

The litmus test for that, in my opinion, is whether the submission was preceded by any substantive communication between Richard and the rules making bodies regarding the specific legalities of features from the Radon or Firman. The fact that Richard may or may not have been suggesting similar changes over the years on public forums is immaterial, if the timing and circumstances suggest that this is largely directed at Radon + Firman. Especially considering that very few existing cars will see any real effective change to their legality - the coincidence is a bit large to swallow if these new "clarifications" end up neatly buttonholing only the new cars into an illegal corner.

Given the level of buzz surrounding the supposed illegality of the new cars floating around in email, I would be drop dead shocked if this were not directly related.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Purple Frog]

Obviously Richard Pare is quite pissed with me. He is suffering from a huge case of "No good deed goes unpunished."

I have publicly apologized to Richard in a earlier post. He is a good man, a hard working volunteer with great intentions.

I believe Richard has been possibly made a scapegoat. He says he was asked by "club officials" (his words) to do this project. And, he reports he cleared it with Gomberg first before proceeding.

John LaRue has told me there were others that reviewed Richard's work before submittal.

I told John LaRue yesterday it was stupid to submit it under Richard's name. If there was a committee, team, group, whatever involved, then it should have been submitted under all their names, or the committee name. It has not been fair to put the target on Richard's back if he was not doing this solo.

I know Richard couldn't possibly be naive enough to think this would just slip through without making a big splash. He/they should have expected the roar. To not have is truly naive. You put something out for public comment, you have to expect not all comments will be positive.

It's a travesty if Richard is taking all the hits, and he didn't work alone.

Again, i apologize Richard for some implications, but for now, it is still only your name on the document.

[Dave Gomberg]

...
I believe Richard has been possibly made a scapegoat. He says he was asked by "club officials" (his words) to do this project. And, he reports he cleared it with Gomberg first before proceeding.

First, back in March of this year, Richard submitted some requests to the CRB to clarify some FF/FC rules. We dealt with one letter and tabled the other (it is still tabled, but is now subsumed by the proposed rewrite). As has been noted by others, Richard has submitted requests for changes/clarifications several times over the years.

Second, at some point earlier this year (probably in April) Richard asked if there was any interest in a rewrite of the FF/FC rules to clean things up. My response was that if he wanted to invest his time, we would certainly look at it and put it through the process. I advised him of the CRB/BoD time lines with regard to publishing and approving any substantive rewrite. As can be seen, this is not something that was done overnight. His proposal was transmitted to the CRB in July. (This was nearly too late for consideration for 2011.) It was reviewed and modified in some areas by the F/SR advisory committee and then sent to the CRB where it was agreed to publish it for member comment. That is where we are today. Please send your comments/suggestions/corrections to the CRB through the web form at crbscca.com and they will be considered by the advisory committee and the CRB. Nothing is set in stone. It is even conceivable that the CRB could withdraw some or all of it before sending it to the BoD for approval.

Dave

[Purple Frog]

Thanks Dave for shedding some light.

[Purple Frog]

Ron B. has already pointed out that I can't find things in the current GCR. But i did find the picture of the BMW.

I do have one question that I have wondered about.

Is there an actual document titled Formula Ford 1986 construction requirements ?

For years it has been refered to in the first sentence of paragraph D.6... followed by the words as of January 1, YYYY.

e.g. Formula Ford 1986 construction requirements as of January 1, 2011.

Or, is that sentence really just trying to say, Formula Ford construction requirements as of January 1, yyyy. If so, is the sentence needed at all? It appears to be a subtitle at the beginning of a paragraph. Bad form, and lends to confusion. i don't think the sentence is needed at all.

Some folks have asked me if there is a 1986 book that has to be refered to to understand the complete rule set. It is as if you need the 1986 rules, and all the paragraphs in D.6 and D.7 of the GCR to understand what the frame/bodywork rules are. (I don't think that is the case, but Ron and others have proved me wrong)

And I have had "knowledgible" folks say things like "You have to go back and look at the 1986 rule..." If that is the case, it should be printed in a appendix of the GCR.

[cooleyjb]

Regardless of this rule going forward or not it seems ridiculous to me that it could be put into the 2011 GCR. 4 months is way too quick. Something like this that could affect a car that is already under construction/design should be put out with at least a full year if not two lead time so people have time to modify/change things to meet the rules.

I'm honestly not smart enough to understand the fine details of the rule but it sure looks like they are decently big enough to warrant at least more time for constructors to deal with than four months.

[Larry]

Over the years, I've been fortunate enough to have many conversations with Richard, and to a lesser extent, Steve, on the state of formula car racing in the US. Richard is probably the best source of "corporate history" on formula cars that we have! Furthermore, his intentions have always been for the betterment of the sport--meaning emphasis on safety, cost and competition among manufacturers.

Richard is a guy who has been on the manufacturing end of things, and understands what it takes to build a car--and to understand the rules (and the gray areas). He has ALWAYS worked to clarify these areas, and his objectives are purely for the good of the sport!

There is no secret cabal trying to stop Radon...God knows we need some people willing to manufacture formula cars--but the cars need to comply with the GCR. If there are questions regarding meanings, the time to iron them out is now, and not next week or next year.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

[Wren]

IMHO, Richard does not have a dog in this fight as the last car he built was about 10 to 15 years ago.

I think that bringing facts in to this argument would represent a serious mistake at this time, there is obviously a huge conspiracy afoot and we don't have time to develop informed opinions.

I think I am going to blame the movies for why people try to see a conspiracy in everything.

[DaveW]

Richard Pare has been fighting these battles for as long as I have known him. All of these battles have been aimed at clarifying rules such that conflicting interpretations counter to the continuity and health of the classes involved are minimized,

This is obviously a (mostly) thankless job, one that I do not, and never will, have the perseverance, concentration, and thick skin required to do.

So, from a participant who severely dislikes politics and all it entails, thank you very much for your efforts and pain in getting this proposed rule change out there!

[Thomas Copeland]

Wren,

You are absolutely correct. If we don't like the process in the way that rule changes get proposed then we should try to get the process changed.

I DON'T LIKE THE PROCESS.

I have never liked the process. It is conceptually flawed. It always has been.

The way rule change proposals were just foisted onto us "for our approval" (or disapproval). And what if we don't send in enough of our angry ticked-off letters? Do the proposed rules just go into effect by some "default process"?

This method of rule change proposals puts too much of the the burden on us, the club members.

Now, like a ticking timebomb we have to defuse it.

I hate getting out of bed in the morning to go to work. Now, I have to take time from my dream state to write a letter to the CRB to stop this train derailment from happening?

This is more than just dumb. This is just a bad way to operate. Disfunctional doesn't even come close to properly describing it.

Any process that operates in a fashion that gets this many people angry and upset is broken. Never mind the right or wrong of the matter.

It's way pass time to change the process. Maybe we need to write two letters to the CRB on this one.

.

[Wren]

Wren,

You are absolutely correct. If we don't like the process in the way that rule changes get proposed then we should try to get the process changed.

I DON'T LIKE THE PROCESS.

Please don't think that I am defending the process or holding it up as the best way to do things. I just don't think that people should forget that it is how we currently do things and start looking for conspiracies.

This method of rule change proposals puts too much of the the burden on us, the club members.

I don't think that letting the members run the club is such a bad thing. I think the other option is to let the club management run things. If you have ever talked to a CRB member, I think you know why that is not a good thing. But, I do wish the process was better.

Some of the best sports leagues I have ever participated in were run by the benevolent dictator method where one guy made the rules and decisions and you could like it or leave. But, we don't have the same portability with our cars since we need tracks and all kinds of support. Wrestling has never required much more than a rash guard and a mouthpiece and the organizers need open floor space and mats and competitiors have multiple options every weekend on where to compete.

[Thomas Copeland]

Funny. I never saw the parallels between us and WWF until just now...

[Wren]

Funny. I never saw the parallels between us and WWF until just now...

Not the fake wrestling. I was just drawing a parralel to another sport.

[Purple Frog]

Notice no one has answered my question in post #62.

At least not on Apexspeed.

But Richard Pare sent me an email saying what he knows about the stupid sentence:

Not sure why the club does it like that, but I doubt that will get changed 'cause they always have done it that way for their own reasons, but it wasn't up to me to attempt that sort of change at this time.

Thank you Richard

So there is currently no such thing as the Formula Ford 1986 construction requirements. Even though they have been mentioned in every GCR since 1986. They existed in 1986, but haven't really existed since the 1987 GCR came out. I love these FC rules, they are so clear and easy to read and understand...

[S Lathrop]

Notice no one has answered my question in post #62.

At least not on Apexspeed.

But Richard Pare sent me an email saying what he knows about the stupid sentence:

Not sure why the club does it like that, but I doubt that will get changed 'cause they always have done it that way for their own reasons, but it wasn't up to me to attempt that sort of change at this time.

Thank you Richard

So there is currently no such thing as the Formula Ford 1986 construction requirements. Even though they have been mentioned in every GCR since 1986. They existed in 1986, but haven't really existed since the 1987 GCR came out. I love these FC rules, they are so clear and easy to read and understand...

I will attempt an explanation.

In 1985 Denver called a meeting of all the FF manufacturers. At that meeting the FF rules were rewritten and then published in the 1986 GCR. There were several changes in the rules that were only required for cars built after Jan 1, 1986. Cars built prior to that date were legal and not required to be changed to comply with the new rules. You thus have two distinct sets of rules that a FF could be built to and comply with. A Zink 10 does not meet 1986 rules but is still legal.

At the time, the major effect was cars built prior to 1986 did not have to meet the roll cage rules. Years later, all cars were required to meet the roll cage rules. The minimum foot box width would be another area that you might find a pre 1986 car that would not comply.

The big changes were the requirement for roll cages, side penetration protection, minimum foot box width, and nose boxes. Also rules restricting the shape of the under tray (ground effect rules) were adopted.

For years both sets of rules were published and a distinction had to be made between which sections applied when you looked at a particular car.

Because the Swift was homologated in 1984 and did not meet the 1986 rules, new cars were grandfathered for many years. One of the principals that we set out at the beginning of the meeting was that no cars would be illegal because of any change in the rules.

[TimW]

The 1986 rules are the 2010 rules, essentially with statements of exception for cars with log books issued prior to 1986 (because I believe homologation was also introduced in 1986). Why is that so complex to understand?

[John LaRue]

I was provided this photo of the Reynard which looks to me to be fully compliant.

[Purple Frog]

Looks compliant to me also. Even in 2011.

Thanks John.

[RobLav]

Was Art writing on this thread? Did I miss something?

[rickjohnson356]

Froggy was making a tongue-in-cheek reference to another member who reads the rulebook very, very, very, closly and bekieves in literal interpretaion of those same rules. Someimes belaboring the issue to the point (IMHO) of ridiculousness.

However, we all still like to listen to his opinions and respect his knowledge of said rulebook.

[John LaRue]

This is a photo of the eariler Carbir FC front bulkhead. Someone had raised a question as to whether this car had issues with the current GCR; it looks to have a proper structure at the front bulkhead as well.