FC/ FF rules passed 12 / 0

[KevinFirlein]

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...track-nov1.pdf someone gonna get seriously upset over this

[KevinFirlein]

sent a PM to Doug to move this to the rules section where it belongs

[RobLav]

What I find problematic is the unanimous vote given the contentious issues.

[Wren]

After all of the ranting, lies, and insane conspiracy theories surrounding this rules consolidation, I am surprised to see so little interest now that we know the rules consolidation is passed.

I am also a little bit surprised to see a unanimous vote. I think that a lot of the problems faced in this rules consolidation, i.e. the 80cm rear overhang for FC and a 100cm overhang for FF, make a solid argument for why the consolidation was needed.

[KevinFirlein]

I guess people no longer care Wren or , as some threatened they are on the phone with their lawyers.

[Dennis McCarthy]

So does this rules change effectively make the Radons illegal for club racing?

[John Robinson II]

So does this rules change effectively make the Radons illegal for club racing?

I wanted to beat Wren to the punch...
no this rule change does not, the existing rules did and still do.


disclaimer-I really dont know if the radon is legal or not, based on all the other banter about the subject this comment is a given.

John

[John Robinson II]

never mind, just made my mind up...going vintage racing.

Ok, update, my sources say the measurements are to be changed. Thanks.
Still thinking hard about the vintage....

[KevinFirlein]

John our DB1 tail from Pennon passed when I checked it....just

[jim morgan]

john,
Can I have the rest of your spares

[greg pizzo]

I read the new rules once ... looks like the most damning change was the reference plane change !! the "rear edge of the front tire" is no longer the forwards edge of the "plane" NOW it has to be all the way to the "front bulkhead" ... so the Firman car is okay? but maybe not the "R" car .. ?? I'm I correct??

And ... if you have a "tea tray" it has to come all the way to the front bulkhead of the car now as before it could just reach to the rear edge of the front tire ...

that seems to be a MAJOR change ... the rest of what I read was pretty much no big deal stuff ...

Did I miss something else ?

[KevinFirlein]

the part about bracket material is and what they can do is crucial to the Radon. Their shocks, in the front, are basically held on to the frame by a carbon fiber " bracket". I was never sure it was legal anyways but I always figured this was one of the items that Nathan paid for and got a ruling on as no one would build that without checking 1st IMO. If I read the new rules correctly this KO's that part and thus the Radon car. I could of course be reading something wrong and welcome a correction.

also if a Radon is club illegal then it is also pro illegal although I wouldnt bet my house on that being allowed to happen comsidering who owns one

[greg pizzo]

Kevin
I have never seen a Radon in person so I still have no idea how that car is made as whole ... but couldnt that "bracket" just be replaced with an aluminum CNC part or casting and solve that ?
Again I have never laid eyes on one in person just the few pix that float around ..

AM I correct that the "tea tray" is not long enough as well ?

the "tea tray" seems to be a BIG difference from the 2012 rules
effectively makes the reference plane start at the front bulkhead ... making the tea tray nearly 10-12" longer ?


and the bit about the cockpit interior panels seems to be a bit different .. but not a huge deal

[BWC54]

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...track-nov1.pdf someone gonna get seriously upset over this

When will the complete rule set be published including the ones that they just had titles for in the proposal?

[S4mom]

.

[Brandon Dixon]

There were some corrections (errors and omissions) to the FF/FC rule set that was published in the "what do you think" Fastrack. It doesn't look like the SCCA website has been updated with those changes, but I believe that the BoD was supplied an updated rule set. I hope that the as voted rules will be published fairly soon.


The people writing the proposals listened to the feedback and tried to make appropriate changes.


I know for sure that the FF rear overhang was updated to 100cm and there will be a revised drawing that spells these dimensions out. I don't have an exhaustive list of the other changes, but again hopefully the edited version will be published soon.

[Reddog]

Six inch spacing for fasteners on the belly pan am I wrong or is that what they are saying?

[greg pizzo]

.......dupe

[greg pizzo]

Six inch spacing for fasteners on the belly pan am I wrong or is that what they are saying?

LESS than 6 inch spacing is what I read ...if it is the other way around as you say ... these rules need ANOTHER RE-WRITE !!!

[R. Pare]

The rules on spacing read almost exactly the same as before - 6 inch MAXIMUM spacing ( another word for "no more than" as both the new and old rules are worded) between the fasteners.

[greg pizzo]

that's how I read it ... GOOD !! on that point ..

[Modo]

Bottom pan is stressed as always......rivets less than 6 inches makes it stressed....so u don't hurt ur tukhus (sp).....grass clumps have always been fun....whooooopee, Ow, Ow

[KevinFirlein]

funny something that stirred so much debate gets passed with a relative " whisper " . Makes you wonder about what storm might be brewing that no one wants to talk about doesnt it ? hmmmm.

[R. Pare]

Maybe (hopefully!) people have actually read and compared the 2 rule sets and found that there are really not any significant enough changes to warrant commentary.

[KevinFirlein]

you could well be correct Richard. I talked directly to my area director who also happens to be the Chairman of the BoD and the info thats been talked about by many offline is innaccurate. The rumored lawsuit doesnt exist according to him. Time to move on.

[Wren]

I agree that it should blow over but I doubt it.

Unless several people went back on their meds simultaneously, I doubt that they gave up their fabricated conspiracy theories so easily.

[starkejt]

I agree that it should blow over but I doubt it.

Unless several people went back on their meds simultaneously, I doubt that they gave up their fabricated conspiracy theories so easily.

Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5.

[Wren]

Except that it does signify something. If those people have enough juice to be exempt from the rules then that is pretty noteworthy.

[jimh3063]

Interesting.
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...ck-jan-coa.pdf
It's always the the most quiet before the storm.

[Dennis McCarthy]

Thanks to all the effort by those that got the rules changed. You saved us!

What a job you did. You managed to render years of hard work by many

people and maybe a million bucks worth of FC race cars worthless with a few

paragraphs. You also put one of the only serious efforts at American formula

car construction for the last decade and probably the next, out of business

for all intents and purposes. Of course now the FC fields will flourish and

you will have a banner year selling new cars. I for one will sleep much better

knowing that you've saved FC racing....

[jimh3063]

Wren:
You're a graduate level engineer and probably a very smart guy. I'd like to ask that you present the entire set of documents that you presented when asking for the compliance review of the Radon to the Apex members. I for one don't have the background you do and I would suspect that many on the this bbs don't either. We would learn something from the information you presented in its entirety.

I am asking that you present all the documents, drawings and information you presented to the review board to the members on Apex. You never know, you may convert some diehard Radon believers, myself included.

Does anyone else want to see it?
Looking forward to seeing the documentation.

Jimmy

[Dennis McCarthy]

Jim those new car designs are generally top secret, I wouldn't hold your breath...

[RobLav]

Wondering out loud here (usually a bad thing to do).

1. So Brandon, with Wren's help, is planning to run F2KCS in 2014?

2. When will F2KCS use a different sanctioning body?

[Purple Frog]

We have no problem with the sanctioning body we use. Tom Campbell and all his staff at SCCA PRO are very good to work with.

The driver/entrant is responsible to the actions of any of his/her crew during the event.

[jimh3063]

Dennis:
Based on what was posted in Fast Track, Wren never submitted anything to to with his proposed car design. He only asked for clarification on the Radon design. Wren, you would obviously know more about this than Dennis and I. I am only going by what I read. Can you shed some light on the topic please.

Jimmy

[jimh3063]

Dennis:
I don't think that what Wren submitted was top secret per Fastrack. He was asking for a "Radon compliance review" using the 2012 rules which will be gone in a week for a car that he is thinking of building in 2013 or later. From what I read he could not have submitted any secret or proprietary information pertaining to his car he is designing. It stated he submitted "Mr. Keith submitted Radon specific drawing, pictures, assertions, and other renderings". I am guessing that the pictures are the ones Nathan posted on Apex or ones from the series while cars were on track. I'd say that as there is no other way that Wren would have access to any others.

As for illustrations of the Radon, got me on that one. I'm sure he is not privy to any Radon drawings. The only people who would have those are Nathan and the COA when Nathan submitted his own self protest. There may be other people in the SCCA as I'm not really sure of the whole review process and who sees what when Nathan protested himself. I'm sure Wren is not on the COA or any other board for that matter. Wren if I am wrong on that, I'm sure you will let me know.

I'm sure no one from the SCCA gave anyone any drawings or proprietary info. That would be very poor judgement on a good day and illegal on a few fronts on a bad day. If you were going to use proprietary drawings that were illegally obtained to use the intellectual property contained in them to make a product, you would be making license plates eventually. If you pass illegally obtained information across state lines, it becomes a federal offense.

I'm still a little puzzled why is was even allowed to happen. In the SCCA's own words, "The Review Committee noted that GCR 8.1.4. limits reviews under this provision to the competitor?s own car or components from the competitor?s own car. The Review Committee Chair acknowledged that Mr. Keith?s request was not in agreement with 2012 GCR 8.1.4., but decided to provide a ruling to assist him in his FC car construction efforts.".

Another excerpt. "2012 GCR 8.1.4. enables a member to request a determination on the compliance of his vehicle or its components through the Club Racing Department. Mr. Keith?s request is titled ?Radon Compliance Review.? His opening paragraph states he is writing to request a review of the compliance of the Radon Rn.10 FC car in four areas. He goes on to say that he is concerned about the legality of the Rn.10 FC under the 2012 GCR. He concludes this paragraph with, ?I am currently constructing an FC car,
and have some rules related issues where I want to make sure that I understand the interpretation. Mr. Keith then presents his questions and concerns using numerous pictures, descriptions, and drawings of a Radon Rn.10 FC. The majority of his entreaty
specifically questions the compliance of the Radon Rn.10 FC car." It's weird that the rules were selectively bent for one person. Wren, when are you previewing your new car? Steve, lookout, here comes more competition.

I wonder what caused the SCCA to do a 180 for Wrens' request for a review after the review was complete? Odd. This is about as much of a 180 as I've ever seen"

The Review Committee was aware that the request was not in agreement with GCR 8.1.4., but chose to accept, hear, and provide a judgment. Their actions were not in accordance with the rules governing Compliance Reviews. The request should have been returned unheard with a notification to Mr. Keith that the applicable GCR section limits the review scope to his car.

DECISON (Just so Steve L doesn't rag on my typos. the SCCA spelled decision wrong)
Mr. Wren Keith?s compliance review request was not in compliance with GCR 8.1.4. The COA voids the Review Committee?s ruling in its entirety. All copies distributed to parties outside the Court of Appeals and National Chairman of Stewards shall be destroyed. The Review Committee ruling may not be used or cited by any party in any proceedings that may come before any bodies within the Sports Car Club of America. Mr. Keith?s request is returned as if it had never been heard or decided. His review fee is returned in its entirety.

Wow This one is good.
"All copies distributed to parties outside the Court of Appeals and National Chairman of Stewards shall be destroyed. " Quick, spark up the shredder!!! WTF, I'm waiting for this to be part of Tom Clancy's new spy novel.

Wren, help me out if I misquoted anything. I tried to cut and paste as much as possible to not misstate anything.

[Wren]

Jim,

You and several others were scammed into spending over $100k on cars that were neither compliant nor competitive. That's a shame, but it is what it is. That is far too much money and there is far too much water under the bridge for anyone to have their mind changed now. Even if I had ended up with a COA approved document undeniably proving the non-compliance of the Radon, I would not expect anything to change. In spite of Dr. Radon's claims to the contrary, I would not expect him to accept the COA ruling. I would also not expect anything to change in the F2KCS either with regard to the rules for which that the Radon is allowed exceptions. A Radon investor owns the series and he gets to make the rules and determine their enforcement. That is certainly his choice.
I think this may have been our last chance to know for a certainty whether or not the Radon was compliant to the 2012 GCR. I'll admit that I was curious. Oh well, most of us had our minds made up anyways. I can't imagine what positive things would come from posting the compliance request.

Wren:
You're a graduate level engineer and probably a very smart guy.

Thanks for the kind words.

[crowe motorsports]

Based on what I read, I am not sure this is something to get over excited about. However I may be oversimplifying the request for clarification on the the roll hoop/bulkhead issue. Wren asked for clarification on that;the use of carbon fiber suspension items; front crush box; and the diffuser. The latter three items are easily fixed as they are bolt on items. I assume (which I know well what that can stand for) may simply be the broomstick issue. I will tell you, I have seen competitors at vintage, regional, nationals and pro races that sit dangerously high and do not meet the broom stick rule but they are allowed on track.

Buyers of cars need to make sure cars fit them. People inquire in many classes what car would fit them. From my perspective, a Radon was built for a guy that sits very low in a car. If you can't sit low enough, you bought the wrong car.

I prefer to sit very low in cars. So a Radon F1000 could be in my future

Two examples:

[jimh3063]

Wren:
I'm a very straight forward person. I'm sure you're a bright guy. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't think it. I would ask that you post the all the documents that you submitted to the COA. Let the Apex community in on what you think makes the car illegal by the 2012 rules. There are a lot of smart and reasonable people on the BBS. Let us see what you saw.

Jimmy

[jimh3063]

Mike:
I hear you. I bought a car that I fit in comfortably. The radon has a big cockpit.
I'm not a svelte man. I didn't spend a 100K but not that far from it. I bought a car that I fit in comfortably.

We each have our own reasons.
Jimmy

for the record, the car in Mike's pic is not a Radon.