FORMULA D Rule Changes...

[tyndago]

I would rather see him in a skyline with s14 suspension (I know its not) than in another s14 out there. T Plain and simple. It brings the sponsor money and it supports the series that will never change.

Actually you make a really good point. He could have been out there in an S-Chassis car. He might actually be doing better. The S-Chassis is lighter than the bigger and heavier R34 chassis. The S-Chassis uses a strut type front suspension. The engine mods are free, so he could be running the same engine and turbo on the car. Everyone has seen RB swaps into 240's. They actually fit a little better as there is more room between the towers.

Rear suspension, S13 , S14 , S15 , R32 , R33 , R34 all use the same/similar subframe with with a couple of pickup point differences in the later cars.

So really, why didn't they run an S-Chassis ? Everyone is ? If this car were an S-Chassis car, this thread, these issues would not exist.

So instead of running the "cool" car for the spectators to see, if they were running the same as everyone else. Who cares about the spectators ?

[brainfood]

I dont understand what all the crying is. Takatori is top 6 because he can drive not because of the strut front suspension swap. Whoever protested I dont understand? It just put the car on par with all the s-chassis's in the series. I would rather see him in a skyline with s14 suspension (I know its not) than in another s14 out there. The car is amazing, Takatori kicks serious *Censored**Censored**Censored*. Its drifting. I think if there are people that have unfair advantages because of "grey" area mods its not Takatori. Problem is its the same problem that has been around forever. The top teams have so much money into the program that its nearly impossible for a privateer to come in and compete. But that will never change, its a spectator sport and 700hp cars look cooler than 250hp cars. Plain and simple. It brings the sponsor money and it supports the series that will never change.

[sa-drift.com]

By strict guidelines, your guys' car isn't legal. It isn't. And the wheel wells have been straight cut off the R34 and replaced with C34 ones so that the suspension will "bolt in".

How many times do I have to say, nothing has been "cut" at all. All the parts used can be ordered from Nissan and fit any "34 chassis" (C34/R34/W34) WITHOUT CUTTING If it was held on by bolts, it would be "bolt on" but this is "weld on." It fits as is because it's for the same chassis.

Roo claiming that nothing has been done to give the car an advantage... YEAH RIGHT! Why go through all that work to... NOT make the car better?

I didn't say it made the car better, I said it doesn't give it any sort of unfair performance advantage....and it doesn't...hell, the majority of the cars in the series are running struts.

The double arm setup is more prone to bend under the stress of drifting, we're running a single car based out of Japan, we built the car to last and be put back together easily. Our car probably has the least fabwork put into out of all the cars in the top 10. (cept possibly Hampshaa)

[_PG_]

oh wait...sooo a GTO running s14 shocks..if thats not pre-approved i hope its on formula D 's list of illegal cars that need to be fixed


maybe we need to have a RE-TECH day to approve everyones *Censored**Censored**Censored**Censored*.


oh here is a better idea.


WHO THE *Censored**Censored**Censored**Censored* CARES. take the cars as they are, and *Censored**Censored**Censored**Censored*ing drive

Ross, that's easier said than done. That's like saying Formula 1 cars just need to be 1 seat and open wheel. Everything else is free, JUST GO OUT AND DRIVE!!! When there is business involved, there need to be strict guidelines.

By strict guidelines, your guys' car isn't legal. It isn't. And the wheel wells have been straight cut off the R34 and replaced with C34 ones so that the suspension will "bolt in".

C'MON!

Roo claiming that nothing has been done to give the car an advantage... YEAH RIGHT! Why go through all that work to... NOT make the car better?

I forget if it was on this site or ZT but you guys also claimed that some DA cars were illegal. Serious? We've been telling everyone out in the open to comb the cars over with a fine tooth comb and see if ours are illegal. THEY ARE NOT. 100%. No questionables. No cheats. No bent rules, no white lies. You wanna say that crap? That's BS. I'd bet that they are the most legal, un-modified cars in FD.

Takatori is a cool dude. Always has been. Good driver, etc... I know like hell you guys haven't done the "worst" thing in an unsporting manner concerning the rulebook, but come up with some hard facts about specific other cars and protest THEM if you think that's what people have been doing. Hey, that's racing, right? Sorry.

[deadpirate]

oh wait...sooo a GTO running s14 shocks..if thats not pre-approved i hope its on formula D 's list of illegal cars that need to be fixed


maybe we need to have a RE-TECH day to approve everyones *Censored**Censored**Censored**Censored*.


oh here is a better idea.


WHO THE *Censored**Censored**Censored**Censored* CARES. take the cars as they are, and *Censored**Censored**Censored**Censored*ing drive

[tyndago]

This taken from RMR's thread on LS1gto.com......See tenth quote down..Posted by a tech from the RMR team/shop.... Boo-yeah!
http://www.ls1gto.com/forums/showthr...ght=s14&page=2

This one where they say they use S14 shocks. That must have been pre-approved.

[stedriftward]

Come on. Thats all just heresay that the GTO uses S14 parts in the rear. No proof that the GTO uses any S14 suspension components. You should shut up if you don't have proof the GTO uses S14 parts in the rear.

This taken from RMR's thread on LS1gto.com......See tenth quote down..Posted by a tech from the RMR team/shop.... Boo-yeah!
http://www.ls1gto.com/forums/showthr...ght=s14&page=2

[courantcom]

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???????????????

No...because this is now a discussion about something else.

[courantcom]

ah. can someone confirm?

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

Confirmed.

[courantcom]

Wow, popular thread. But you got us. It's a huge conspiracy. We favor certain teams and we do things behind doors and we look the other way when someone sponsors us. We do it all in the name of the dollar. Mooo haa haa haaa.... Come on, get out of there with that! We've fined our own past Champion Rhys Millen. We even lobbied to have D1 drivers here, so the argument we don't want any J guys doing well is a lil soft. This is as down the middle organization as it comes. Forget all that stuff. Some of you are way off the reservation and doing a disservice to the team in question and the community of drifting by speculating and gossiping about things you don't have all the facts on.

Some, but not all...

There is no specific reason that we have been holding off in responding until this time. Rather most times teams and organization handle matters of dispute in a professional matter mostly done offline and generally with the team principle, not in a public forum.

But it's fine. When one party has the forum all its own certainly, the picture painted will certainly represent the far reaching realm of that side. Kind of like the guy who tells the officer he wasn't speeding only to find out he got caught on tape blowing a red and counter locked on the 22/5 Freeway interchange and then when showed the tape says, "ok officer maybe it did break the law a lil bit."

So going back a bit.. Ask any team that has ever done a build that they feel falls within gray area of our rule book (and there is gray in every rulebook in every series) and you will find that that team has consulted our Chief Steward for direction on how to do it in accordance with our rules and within the confines of what is fair.

I've asked other teams. Wild allegations have never stemmed from me, but yet people from within YOUR organization (Formula D) have tried to silence my voice by contacting people that personally know me. Do you guys not think that they would tell me? I've voiced my opinions and thoughts. What's the harm in that unless I'm starting to get close to unraveling something you didn't think I knew anything about.

To state an example that has been used in this post, the Scion team did just that. RSR, Design Craft(Gary Castillo), the entire team along with Toyota/Scion worked alongside Randy to complete this one of a kind and EXTREMELY unique build. Racing is all about finding gray and gray they did. Now we don't want every team to do that, but they did work within the gray and created a precedent of which we found helped us in how we work with these types of builds and circumstances in the future. You would never know the detail or time that went into the back and forth from them to us rather you are speculating on stuff you don't even know. The flip side is that SA did not contact us about the details of their build. Gray is gray..
..here is black and white:

Long Beach/Annual Tech. SA Drift brings the car to tech and our staff finds that the original suspension on the R34 has been modified to a strut-type suspension. When FD staff addressed the concern with SA staff, we were told that the R34 was available with strut suspension thus falling in line with the guidelines of suspension as directed by the rule book. For us and for fairness to other competitors, anything out of the ordinary like that has to be verified. So we worked with the team to try and verify the information.
This was to no avail. So our own staff exhaustively did the research and getting all the documents and paperwork from Nissan, spending many hours to make sure that we knew exactly what was what. Conclusion: R34 did not come with strut suspension, rather double wishbone. The suspension parts rather came off that of a C34. The team maintained the whole time that the R34 came with strut suspension. Not once prior to entering the series did they alert us of the build or ask for any kind of guidance (again this is a common practice for many builders that work in the series) on what they were doing.
Rather SA maintained that the parts were in fact from an R34. This is a black and white issue. And we investigated it for nearly two rounds so as to make sure we knew exactly what we were talking about and to take the time to get the right information. You can't complain about the rule book after the fact. That rule has been there for a long time.

At this point, our Chief Steward is basically backed into a corner with a clear illegal violation so a fair penalty was assessed. People that knew of the violation were calling for a very stiff penalty, even for the car to be completely illegal. So what we assessed is more than fair. Everyone knows that FD always give the benefit of the doubt and always is lenient when it comes to docking points or fining teams (Which by the way go to charity).

Sounds great...what charity?

You really have to do something over the top for it to happen. Anyone that competes with us knows this. We have given the benefit of the doubt many times over.

What? All you really have to do is be somewhere near the top for anyone to notice? Oh wait...I read that wrong. Sorry.

Formula Drift has been criticized by teams in the past for being too soft and so in the off season we invested in additional tech staff to work on making sure teams are building cars that fall within the guidelines. We have already worked with teams to fix numerous safety issues and validate many, many builds. These are often not public record (unless someone makes it so) because teams to be charged with a safety or build penalty is an issue we like to deal with as much courtesy, delicacy and care. Imagine if you are a sponsor and you just plunked down many thousands of dollars to the team and then read on a public forum that your prize driver can't build a roll cage to spec. How do you think that makes the team and/or driver feel knowing their sponsors embarrassment? There is no need to bring an issue to the public and embarrass a team and it’s unfortunate that other teams have been pulled into this unknowingly and unprovoked and without any hard data to back the accusations.

A safety issue is a safety issue... There's no doubt in anyone's mind that this particular rule of your series is even allowed to be questioned. This particular area of your rule book should carry no gray areas at all.

It's different for a sanctioning body to stand as a governing professional entity to go and embarrass a team. It's different for a sanctioning body to create VTS sheets and openly disclose all modifications done to each competing car so that there is no more gray areas. Look at the cars fielding your series. Show me ONE car that is clearly dominating the field.

Drifting has also been said to be a sport in which drivers are required to have a ton of talent. Drifting is also very much a spectator sport in which spectators come, sit in their seat, and watch. If drifting were all about driving talent, then everyone should just enter a Spec car -- whatever it may be. But, that's not the point. It's fantastic to see how other cars fair against other cars. It's exciting to see how a V8 powered 240SX can hang with a a Dodge Viper. It's exciting to see how Pat Mordaunt's S14 suddenly became competitive against JR's Mustang. All of this is GOOD. So now what? My opinion is this, and I strongly believe it's a very valid opinion:

ALL CARS IN THE SERIES are LEGAL AS THEY SIT. I see no distinct advantage each entry has over one another. I've seen each car win and lose against other cars and drivers in the series. Not a single car/driver is clearly dominating the field. NOW....all cars in the series have to complete VTS sheets that completely disclose EVERYTHING that's been done to their cars, and I mean everything. I'm going to leave this statement as is so that we can discuss this. I'm sure others will have concerns with what I just suggested.

There is no inconsistencies in rulings regarding builds. You either did it properly or you didn’t. You either consulted with FD staff on your build or you didn’t. Many teams have already fixed issues have been penalized and have gone on their way. Others are still being investigated. No one knows how many other active investigations are going on. It is a sensitive and special process and we take care in how we do it.

Why can't everyone know what active investigations are going on? Why does it have to be such a secret? You said no one knows how many other active investigations are going on. Are you also saying that YOU don't know how many are going on? Of all individuals, YOU should know...

People either believe this is a fair organization or you don't. Most do. If you don't, then I don't know what to tell you. So what do you want to do from here? Do you want to keep the public bashing and trying to make a case for whatever you are trying to do? We hope that efforts shift to trying to help the team fix the issue. The penalty is fair; qualifying points are taken, small monetary fine and 10 weeks to fix the problem. We are very happy that Takatori is in the series and it is a very unfortunate series of events that have led us to this point. It is, however, not an excuse that the builders translated our rule book incorrectly.

Read my posts, and I'm not the only one here that's totally OVER on how Takatori's car is not legal for your series as it sits. We know it...everyone knows it. Takatori's car is not legal, and it got caught. I've already mentioned it, and I'm going to mention it again. You hope that efforts shift to trying to help the teams fix the issue. I'm saying that we're all engaged in this discussion so that Formula D can fix it's own issues.

Long story short...
- C34 suspension is OEM to C34 chassis vehicle not R34 chassis
- FD was never contacted or consulted on the build prior to Round 1
- Vehicle was brought to FD LB.
- Suspension was suspicious and FD tech staff did through research to investigate.
- Team did not supply need information to support the legitimacy of the change.
- FD assessed the issue and issued the penalty; qualifying points from Rd1 till the suspension is fixed and monetary penalty.
- SA team has until RD 6 to fix the suspension. [/QUOTE]

Round 6 is on the 13th of September. SA Drift has until the 10th of September to comply. Sorry...just wanted to point out an inconsistency. ;-)

Our suggestion is that people keep the irresponsible speculating and rumor-mongering to a minimum and get back out on the track and run.

Yeah, but to be quite honest, this entire thread has moved away from the fact that the SA Drift Skyline doesn't comply with your rules, and has moved to discussion your rules in general, and how it's enforced, or not enforced. It also discusses how some of your rules simply just doesn't apply any longer, and also discusses how things can be done so that this situation will never repeat itself. Come on now...all gloves off. Quit with the spin control.

[_PG_]

The deal is... C34 uses a Macpherson strut setup. R34 uses double A-arm setup. Struts allow for more angle, less components to hit the wheel, therefore better for big angle.

Yes, its OEM Nissan. Yes, it is also a DIFFERENT suspension type than a stock R34.

It's pretty clear to me.

I'm definitely not saying that all cars in FD are legal. And I'm not saying that racers don't bend the rules. But if there are provisions to get modifications "written off" like other teams have, you should have approached the organizers about the modification plans. Or, protest the cars that are also in breach of the same type of rule you guys are.

My opinion: FD needs to be more transparent in their rule writing, and show a little less bias when presented with questionable vehicles.

[tyndago]

There are also other cars that use all Nissan OEM suspension as well -- at least a great deal of the rear suspension kinda stuff. ;-)

Come on. Thats all just heresay that the GTO uses S14 parts in the rear. No proof that the GTO uses any S14 suspension components. You should shut up if you don't have proof the GTO uses S14 parts in the rear.

[courantcom]

Team SA has components from other Nissan vehicles

ok point taken


Other S13-14 chassis are running S15 or even 300zx parts, is that against the rules too?

Might as well change all the S13 chassis back to 4 lug as well as their control arms and brakes.

This makes perfect sense.

It all depends on what parts. I'm assuming you're talking about suspension components. If it is, then yes. "S"-Chassis cars must seek pre-approval prior to implementng "Z"-Chassis suspension components.

[courantcom]

Heres the rule..

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

The car uses all Nissan OEM suspension.

There are also other cars that use all NIssan OEM suspension as well -- at least a great deal of the rear suspension kinda stuff. ;-)

[tyndago]

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?

Heres the rule..

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

The car uses all Nissan OEM suspension.