FORMULA D Rule Changes...

[Formula D]

ok...so...leme get this straight....

the TC SHARES THE SAME CHASSIS as a toyota WAGON in japan, and there is no problem.

but the skyline SHARES THE SAME CHASSIS as the C34 laurel..and all of a sudden there is a huge issue? where is the fairness in that?

how about that corvette...corvettes come with LEAF-SPRING suspension...and they are running coilovers...how is that not ILLEGAL!!???!!!

You are comparing apples to oranges. You are not privy to the Scion build. You do not know the specifications. You are speculating based on whatever info you think you have. Go to the Scion rig, talk to them, they encourage it. Then discuss.

The issue with the SA team has to do with the suspension configuration. They changed the suspension configuration to something not available for that car. That is a clear violation. It's simple. Read the rule book.

Lots of cars are being investigated. Don't think people are getting a slide. Again, you are basing your conclusions off of information you are not privy to. That's it.

[deadpirate]

i do know the TC is supposed to have shared a chassis with a car in japan...just like the skyline shares a chassis. irregardless of that. maybe im not "privy" to the scion build, but i see that car at every event. i have talked to gushi many times about it.


how can i not be privy to public information about the scion?? i have read the articles, and talked to gushi, i have gone over that car numerous times at every formula D event, i think i have seen just about as much as everyone else. i know more than you think. im not just another formula D "FAN" at an event



but as posted above, if SA had contacted formula D prior to the build, would they have gotten approval like the scion did? i know Formula D officials saw the scion during the build process...would formula D officials have gone to japan to supervise the Skyline build and approve the mods then?

[facked_yer_mom]

So reading about this....SA is pissed off cuz Formula D is penalizing them because of illegal suspension on their r34? SA used suspension from a C34 (Laurel) not a STAGEA and put it on their R34, soo that means that those 2 suspension cars parts aren't inter-changeable because its a different chasis unlike the silvia's s-13,s14 whatever...does that mean SA "modified the c34 suspension" onto the "r34 suspension" meaning did they re-drilled strut mounting points on the r34 to make it fit?

well if that was the case then shouldn't SA have had complied with Formula D rules and contacted them in the first place so none of this crap shouldn't have had happend in the first place?

another question, from last year why didnt signal r34 get hassled as much as from the SA R34?? whats the difference? their both r34 right?

[Slapshotnerd]

Can someone explain the points situation to me?

Right now, top 16 in points is this:

1. Foust - 259 pts
2. Hubinette - 228 pts
3. Forsberg - 226 pts
4. Yoshihara - 217 pts
5. Takatori - 206 pts
6. Tuerck - 199 pts
7. Millen - 187 pts
8. Gittin, Jr. - 182 pts
9. Grunewald - 173 pts
10. McNamara - 172 pts
11. Miki - 119.25 pts
12. Verdier - 113.25 pts
13. Yamanaka - 110 pts
14. McQuarrie - 92.50 pts
15. Mohan - 70.25 pts
16. Haruguchi - 64 pts


Is Takatori out of all 206 of his points? or just points he earned during qualifying?

Right now, Bill Sherman is in 17th place with 63 points. If the point deduction stands, does that mean that Bill Sherman is seeded again?

[rtype16]

Slap from what I gather its just his qualifying points which i thought someone said was 10 points so I think he moves down to 196 so that would move up Tuerck and Takatori down 1.

[Slapshotnerd]

Slap from what I gather its just his qualifying points which i thought someone said was 10 points so I think he moves down to 196 so that would move up Tuerck and Takatori down 1.

ah. can someone confirm?

that seems like the most likely scenario given the explanation above, just wanted to get confirmation.

[olddrifter]

Has anyone asked NISSAN to supply the paper work to prove that the R34 and the C34 ARE the same NISSAN platform, they share 50-80% of the same parts in different configuararions. If NISSAN can supply the paperwork to state that its the same like the TC will this put the problem behind us???????????????

[Father_V]

Passion

ok...so...leme get this straight....

the TC SHARES THE SAME CHASSIS as a toyota WAGON in japan, and there is no problem.

but the skyline SHARES THE SAME CHASSIS as the C34 laurel..and all of a sudden there is a huge issue? where is the fairness in that?

how about that corvette...corvettes come with LEAF-SPRING suspension...and they are running coilovers...how is that not ILLEGAL!!???!!!

You are comparing apples to oranges. You are not privy to the Scion build. You do not know the specifications. You are speculating based on whatever info you think you have. Go to the Scion rig, talk to them, they encourage it. Then discuss.

The issue with the SA team has to do with the suspension configuration. They changed the suspension configuration to something not available for that car. That is a clear violation. It's simple. Read the rule book.

Lots of cars are being investigated. Don't think people are getting a slide. Again, you are basing your conclusions off of information you are not privy to. That's it.

When passion is aroused it often happens that people do not hear what the other party is saying fully. Reading all the posts of the thread I see a bit of this happening on both sides of the issue. Perhaps because my profession (clergyman) deals so much with the appearance of propriety as well as actual impropriety, I have more attention to that particular issue.

Does Formula_D not see that there is an appearance of unfairness in the issue regardless of whether there was *actual* unfairness? Do some of the detrators not see that they presume bad faith on the part of Formula D based on such appearance?

Many of courantcom's specific suggestions deal with eliminating the appearance of impropriety, and it is hard to disagree that reasonable people are seeing such an appearance. Since there have been many teams working through problems with Formula D, is a list of modifications that have actually been approved (minus fines and discussion of the details of how such modifications came to be approved) a difficult thing to publish? I am no expert on mechanical issues so I will freely admit the ignorance I possess, but it seems rather difficult to see, other than the potential misrepresentation which Formula_D mentions, how the C34 suspension swap constitutes a substantial breach of the rules that have been quoted hitherto.

In saying "read the rule book", would it be impertinent to ask for specific rules that are being referred to? The detractors have been rather specific about their quotations from said book.

I greatly resent when people I deal with quote to others or publicly what was most definitely said privately and should have stayed that way, so I sympathise with the plight of the official representative for Formula D who must clean up the mess. It is true, moreover, that rarely can someone who is convinced you are acting in bad faith be argued into believing the opposite. There are individuals, indeed some who have stated their opinions in this thread, who do not presume the bad faith of Formula D and yet do not understand from what has been said so far why Formula D's decision is fair in every detail. I am one of them.

Sincerely,
Rev. Paul L. Vasquez

[Bebop]

Who in the blue hell is posting for formula D? Poor representation, not at all professional.

"The issue with the SA team has to do with the suspension configuration. They changed the suspension configuration to something not available for that car. That is a clear violation. It's simple. Read the rule book. "


Isn't this drifting, the sport where in the good old days (2002 lol) the rules were... suspension modifications unlimited. The configuration isn't available... what does that mean? If it isnt available how did it end up on the car? You dont know how bad this is making formula D look right now. This is drifting, not some old mans road race association (or is it?).

Why is there a need to regulate suspension? As long as its safe and based on some sort of oem or oem style rack and pinion (no tube chassis, or 100% custom rack) its should all be fare game.

Comparing this too a corvette, a viper, a solstice, or a scion isn't comparing apples to oranges. This is comparing oranges to tangerines.

[tyndago]

You are comparing apples to oranges. You are not privy to the Scion build. You do not know the specifications. You are speculating based on whatever info you think you have. Go to the Scion rig, talk to them, they encourage it. Then discuss. . It's simple. Read the rule book.

You might want to try reading that rule book yourself. You merely say to read it, however I not only read it, I think I understand it. There is a difference.

8.1.1.5 Vehicles that do not meet the above eligibility criteria must petition for Approval from Formula Drift.


Formula Drift according to their own rules, can allow or disallow any vehicle based on a petition. Formula Drift , does not have to explain why they can let a rear wheel drive Scion compete. 8.1.1.5 says they can allow any car that doesn't meet the normal criteria. If you want to make a strong point, use that rule section.

I believe this is very key in this discussion. Wether or not the changes to the SA car make it unfair for the other competitors comes into question.

It was said before, I can see how the rules were mis- interpreted. SA used an OEM suspension design on the front of the car. They would not have seeked approval, as they did not believe it was not allowed by the rules. This is Team SA's issue. This is their problem. However, like the Scion, Formula Drift has the ability by their own rules to approve the suspension design. Do they think it offers an unfair advantage ?

8.3.1 The basic OEM suspension design must remain. Any changes to design type suspension must be preaproved by Formula Drift.

[sa-drift.com]

To make it clear, we are 100% in support of Formula D allowing the tC to compete in the series. We love having the car there and are very aware of the details of the build being done step by step in compliance with Formula D. We are NOT arguing against the tC in anyway, we are simply arguing that the same logic regarding chassis be applied throughout the rest of the series. Be it for a whole car or suspension component. If we were talking silvia parts (what we were originally accused of using) or something from a completly different chassis, there would be no arguement from us.

Using these points I can only conclude that the problem isn't the car, FD is applying penalties to a team because they did not ask for pre approval.

So let me ask a question, if Team SA asked for approval during the build of this car would they have been given the approval just like the Tc was?

That is what I would like answered....my mechanic went off the Japanese rulebook which doesn't make it sound like a gray area. The other 34 we built for D1 has the exact same setup so this was nothing new or anything he believed was neccesary to contact FD about.

So...the setup was not "preapproved" in that sense...not intentional...our bad there. So yeah, one would believe the right course of action would be to fine us for not getting it preapproved but approve it now. To this point in time, I have asked specifically what the reasons are why can it not be approved now? I have recieved no answer...

So reading about this....SA is pissed off cuz Formula D is penalizing them because of illegal suspension on their r34? SA used suspension from a C34 (Laurel) not a STAGEA and put it on their R34, soo that means that those 2 suspension cars parts aren't inter-changeable because its a different chasis unlike the silvia's s-13,s14 whatever...does that mean SA "modified the c34 suspension" onto the "r34 suspension" meaning did they re-drilled strut mounting points on the r34 to make it fit?

The suspension parts are 100% interchangable...no redrilling, no cutting, it's made for this chassis, everything fits. There has yet to be an explanation as to why this setup cannot recieve approval.

Why is there a need to regulate suspension? As long as its safe and based on some sort of oem or oem style rack and pinion (no tube chassis, or 100% custom rack) its should all be fare game.

We have already requested this rule be removed from the rulebook. They are taking it into consideration.

[sa-drift.com]

....and for those who wanted to see it:

The 34 chassis comes with both setups from the factory.

[carboy]

suspension

Formula D has to explain then why they allowed a R34 to previously compete and gain points (i think sa is referring to the Signal R34...correct?) if it had the same setup as the SA R34. Without that explanation I think Formula D looks really suspicious and ultra D-1 like(banning people for lame reasons) to even the casual observer like me on this issue...

[sa-drift.com]

Formula D has to explain then why they allowed a R34 to previously compete and gain points (i think sa is referring to the Signal R34...correct?) if it had the same setup as the SA R34. Without that explanation I think Formula D looks really suspicious and ultra D-1 like(banning people for lame reasons) to even the casual observer like me on this issue...

The signal car doesn't have this. (I believe, don't take my word on it) They use something like modified knuckles.

[courantcom]

Oh man...what did I miss?! I work on getting a couple cars ready for this weekend's Streets of Willow event, and all this goes by. Sheesh! People around here were honestly starting to think that all I did was stalk a forum. haha...okay, I'm going to read and reply...to no one's surprise, I've got a bit to say. ;-)

I'm at the shop right now, and believe it or not, the computer I'm using isn't entirely web savvy. I'm going to head home and reply...don't hold your breath. Some people, however, should.