Mopar Retires VIPER From Formula D Series

[Craftsman]

Originally posted by Ris4drift
the corssfire droptop is nowhere as stiff as teh fixed roof.

sleepign thru class or not, basic common sense should tell you that.

however, for drifting i dont think it will matter. you really dont push a cars chassis hard drifting like you can road racing.

Your common sense doesn't apply to engineering... The common sense that engineers have from the studying that they have done is different than regular people's. Same as a race car driver having different common sense than a regular driver on the road... This is not to be arrogant. I'm refering to experience in life and perspective.

FEM my friend is a very complex procedure where every structural part is put into a mathematical model. From there, the model is optimized under several constraints. With modern non-linear techniques, engineers can tweak out chasis that are stiffer than closed car chasis.

The things that are put into consideration during an FEM procedure are Shear, Strain, and Stress.

And if Dodge is going to make a chop-top model for racing, I can assure you, they did optimize the chasis. Racing is racing. A stiffer chasis is always optimal. Road Racing or not.

And my sleeping in class was a joke. I learn my material.

[Octagon]

I'd like to add to Craftsman's statement by pointing out that in the past it was very common for topless cars to be lighter than their hardtop equivalents, but had a lotless structural rigidity.

Nowadays, it's flopped around. Convertibles and roadsters have stronger sills, thicker subframes, thicker A pillars, and extra bracing to make up for the strength lost when you hack off the roof. This adds a bunch of weight.

New manufacturing techniques like hydroforming (as pioneered on the C5 Corvette) have made for lighter stronger steel components, but when building a convertible or roadster it's a matter of minimizing what's added as opposed to removing the weight completely.

[Craftsman]

I would not be surprised to see the chop top version of the car being much more stiffer than the original version. I highly doubt that it will be stiffer and more rigid because they're building it from a closed top version, but again, I would not be surprised if the chasis was stiffer.

I just hope the suspension geometry is that of the stock for this car to make it a competitive car, not an engineered car.

[Ris4drift]

so let me get this straight.

you are arguing with me telling me the crossfire choptop is more rigid and will flex less than the hardtop?

[Ris4drift]

Originally posted by CrazyHawaiian
It did maintain the original CTC unibody/frame, even if it was more of a racecar than a streetcar. That rule is very vague. And because this was sort of a grey area I think thats why it went to number four, the vote you talked about. It was voted yes, which means it was deemed legal. If the outcome of the vote was no, then the CTC would have been illegal and these conversations would never have happened.

IIRC the unibody had tube frame modifications. this is a compettion coupe , not a streetcar. this is the car competting for number 1 in international road racing championships, this is not a drift car. this is the exact same thing as taisan viper.

if the car was legal the whole time there never would have been a meeting, there never would have been 52974208 threads with people trying to argue about it. and it wouldnt have been banned from competing next year. but it wasnt legal, and now its banned. plain and simple.
wheres someoen yall will listen to to back me up on this?

[hondoo]

Originally posted by Ris4drift
IIRC the unibody had tube frame modifications. this is a compettion coupe , not a streetcar. this is the car competting for number 1 in international road racing championships, this is not a drift car. this is the exact same thing as taisan viper.

if the car was legal the whole time there never would have been a meeting, there never would have been 52974208 threads with people trying to argue about it. and it wouldnt have been banned from competing next year. but it wasnt legal, and now its banned. plain and simple.
wheres someoen yall will listen to to back me up on this?

According to the FD rules that were mentioned on page 3 of this thread, the Viper Comp Coupe was LEGAL for 2004.

Formula D has changed the rules for 2005 thus making the Viper Comp Coupe illegal for next season.

FYI- the production street Viper has a tube frame. It is the identical frame used for the Viper Comp Coupe.

[nasty nate 7]

in all of this pertaining to FD, mopar actually did kinda cheat using a custom tube frame chassis while others were using stock chassis. it just gave mopar more of the advantage.

[Craftsman]

Originally posted by Ris4drift
so let me get this straight.

you are arguing with me telling me the crossfire choptop is more rigid and will flex less than the hardtop?

I'm telling you that the fact that it's an open top car can actually be countered by optimizing the chasis. Sometimes the engineers can create chasis that are more rigid than the closed top cars.

I'm not telling you that the Crossfire will be more rigid or weaker. I'm just telling you that being an open top car will not be a factor. The S2000 and C5 Vette are good examples. C5 chasis is super rigid. The convertible C5 is probably as rigid as the closed top counter-part. S2000 uses their X member frame something (I don't know their buzz word for this) to make their chasis much more rigid.

Let me reiiterate the fact engineers have new tools today to optimize chasis designs. Cars aren't just based on driving experience or being a mechanic... Modern engineering is optimized. Tools that they did not have yesterday are avalible today and are being used today on modern cars. This is how they're maximizing room for passengers, minimizing cost, maximizing fuel conservation, and maximizing power (for a variety of different type of fuels and atmospheric conditions).

All cars are purpose built... I'm sure this car is purpose built. Everyone's car on the track is purpose built. I'll only be concerned if it's purpose engineered. This will result in something like NASCAR where the cars are no longer production chasis.

[Ris4drift]

Hodoo:

for the at least THIRD time this thread.

the viper NEVER has been legal. the ONLY reason it was allowed to compete is because formula d allows drivers to vote on illegal cars to enter. they decided to let sam compete in an illegal car. the car did not fall within ghte guidliines of the rulebook. im glad you think the rulebook is compromised of 4 rules (the viper wasnt even legal wthi what you listed) but its not. sorry your having a hard time concieving this concept.


Craftsman:
where is anyone saying you cant make a convertibe stiff or that you need it (insane rigitity) for drifting? or do you just like to drag a redundant point on 4 paragraphs in a post?

[Octagon]

Originally posted by Craftsman
.

I just hope the suspension geometry is that of the stock for this car to make it a competitive car, not an engineered car.

Umm, lowering, changing camber, caster, steering arm length, control arms, and all the rest of the standard tricks applied to ANY Formula Drift or D1 car are part and parcel to changing geometry.

In fact, I've long been a crusader for a premade crossmember/subframe for S13's that adopts the favorable S14 geometry as the S14 had a wider subframe with shorter control arms (less arc of travel = less inherent roll in the chassis = quicker turn in without a need for stiff springs) but unfortunately the import aftermarket is poorly equipped to deliver such radical (if necessary) parts due to absolute arrogance in the belief of Japanese cars' "complete superiority".

You preach about "engineered cars" like some production line is churning out "Drift Car - Just Add Body! Only $19.95". It's not happening. What is happening is that teams are trying to push the bar even higher to make the cars easier to collect so that the drivers can push to even higher limits.

NASCAR has their rulebook so air-tight that the difference between the cars in the field mechanically comes down to grams, millimeters, and tenths of a degree. However, on any raceday you'll still see the guy 43rd on the grid running 4 - 6 seconds slower than the pole position guy. That's real engineering.

Or take Formula One. Innovation was thrown out of F1 about the time Enzo Ferrari and Colin Chapman died. The cars all run the same style of engine, same basic aero package, same basic materials, and more or less the same tires, yet Ferrari can get a car trapping at 212mph going into turn four at Indy while the Minardi can't muster 190. Again, engineering.

Engineering is not completely scratchbuilding a car, or purpose building, or any of that even though in MOTORSPORT's purest form innovation and creative skill must always be prized. Engineering is finding that loophole, that gray area, that edge to win.

Is drifting a motorsport? If so, grow up and treat it like one. It's time for the children to put down their playthings and pick up the tools necessary to compete especially when they're being f*cking HANDED to you.

Unless you'd rather drifting continue to be a sideshow attraction, the import equivalent of Truckasaurus chewing through a school bus. If that's the case, fine. Keep the broken Hachis, keep the half-a$$ed afterthought aftermarket, and keep saying that it's fine to build a drift car so long as you don't build a better drift car.

Buncha fuggin wimps. Guess if you were sprint car drivers you'd roll over and play dead when the World of Outlaws came to your home track instead of running your all to prove you're still better. Well guess what? Fast Freddy Rahmer still hauls his sponsorless sprinter to Terre Haute on an open trailer and still kicks some WoO arse.

He's got talent, he knows how to set up the equipment he has, and he knows his course. In the end, that's what you need to do to win. Don't have better stuff than the competitor. BE better than the competitor.

[Craftsman]

Yea, but F1 isn't really racing to me anymore... F1 is just watching Michael with Ferrari walk away with a happy paycheck every weekend...

To me this whole idea is interesting. Where do you cross the line between engineered cars and purpose built cars? Stock suspension geometry vs. race spec geometry... I'm curious about this as well.

And Risfordrift, the arguement was over. I already stated my point. Whether you believe it or not it doesn't matter. This is what engineers do.

[Octagon]

I draw the line, plain and simple, at silhouette cars. Cars that are not based off of a production shell and do not utilize at least a majority percentage of the production frame/unibody.

Subframes, suspensions, engines, transmissions, all of that is fair game for modification. But once the car becomes a custom frame/unibody wearing custom body panels to make it look like a street car it's out of here. You want silhouettes? Watch JGTC, or DTM, or Trans-Am, or NASCAR, or ALMS GTS, or Grand Am GT.

[hondoo]

Ris4Drift-

Those rules come right from the Formula D Rulebook. Verbatim. I don't know what you're arguing.

The Viper Comp Coupe meets each one of those guidelines.

Let me break it down for you nice and simple:

If you open up the rulebook for Formula D for the 2004 season, you will find that the Viper Comp Coupe was LEGAL.

You are only providing an opinion. Back it up with facts...I've already laid out Formula D's rules straight from their rulebook in this thread. I've shown how the Viper Comp Coupe met those rules.

For the fourth time, the Viper Comp Coupe met Formula D's rules for the 2004 season.

Whether or not they had a meeting is beside the point. Formula D issued a rulebook. And the Viper Comp Coupe met those rules and was allowed to compete.

[CrazyHawaiian]

Originally posted by Ris4drift
IIRC the unibody had tube frame modifications. this is a compettion coupe , not a streetcar. this is the car competting for number 1 in international road racing championships, this is not a drift car. this is the exact same thing as taisan viper.

Exactly, we're talking about the CTC, not the street version of the Viper. Consider them as two different cars. The CTC was released by the factory (250+ units) with these modifications. Therefore the unibody / frame has NOT been modified beyond the OEM specs. This is why rule number three is such a grey area. It was not written with factory built racecars in mind. Technically speaking, the CTC was stock (even if its version of stock was more modified than some of the modified street cars out there).

Originally posted by Ris4drift
if the car was legal the whole time there never would have been a meeting, there never would have been 52974208 threads with people trying to argue about it. and it wouldnt have been banned from competing next year. but it wasnt legal, and now its banned. plain and simple.

Well I guess its not so simple since you insist the car was illegal. It should be obvious that the car was legal because it was allowed to compete. If it was illegal, then it would have not been able to compete. I agree this car was questionable, and I'm assuming thats why there was a vote. Thats where everyone decided it if was legal or illegal. And it was decided that YES the car was allowed to compete, hence it is LEGAL. Just because you're mad the car was able to compete dosnt mean you can go around saying it was illegal. If you should be mad at anyone, be mad at Formula D. It was their rules that allowed the car to even be considered in the first place. I'm sure Formula D rules were updated making this car illegal for next season.

Originally posted by nasty nate 7
in all of this pertaining to FD, mopar actually did kinda cheat using a custom tube frame chassis while others were using stock chassis. it just gave mopar more of the advantage.

Sorry but nobody cheated if all the other drivers allowed the car to compete. Remember, everyone had a chance to say "No this car is illegal" but apparently that wasnt the majority. It was decided that the car would be allowed to compete, so how you gonna say he cheated?

[Ris4drift]

im tired of arguing with people who have no clue what was going on .


hodoo i dont know who you are, and i doubt you actually have possesion of , or much less have read a rulebook for FD. but theres a lot more to a FD rulebook than the 4 rules you pulled out of your *Censored**Censored**Censored* thinking they made up the entirity of the rulebook. could you please tell me the material required and thickness as well as how a FD cage shoudl be mounted since you are so knowledgeable of the FD rulebook? could you please tell me about what it says on what tires are legal? the CTC was NOT legal. there was a meeting at the beginning of the year where the drivers allowed it to compete bc FD #1 priority is drivers, adn they have the final say. the car was NOT legal by rulebook (no tube frame, that is nto a gray area, it says clearly, NO tube frame) however the FD drivers voted to allow it to compete so Sam could compete. End of story, stop tryign to argue FACTS.

[EDITED]

crazyhawaiin. normally your on the ball, however while the viper was not "cheating" (note i never said that however otehr people may have thougth that) according to the technical aspect of the rulebook the car was NOT legal. i know you hawaii people are a tight knit drift community. go ask steevo whats up with the viper next time you see him.