FORMULA D Rule Changes...

[Slapshotnerd]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Formula D

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.

Originally Posted by Mr.Two

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...

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by blaze1

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:

Originally Posted by OpIvy

The 34 chassis comes with both setups from the factory.

[carboy]

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]

Originally Posted by carboy

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.

[tyndago]

I am still wondering what this rule really entails.

8.3.3 Modified or aftermarket suspension parts are only allowed if pre-approved by Formula Drift..

Any brand coil over.

Camber plates

Adjustable upper arms

Adjustable lower arms

Adjustable tension rods.

Bushings

If all of this information was public, then I would not have the question.

Formula Drift seems to want to keep this information from the public. Keep this information even from the competitors. It seems like their policy is one of keeping quiet.

[tyndago]

Originally Posted by sa-drift.com

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

8.3.2 . All suspension mounting points on the hub must remain OEM, except the tie rod mounting points, which may be moved to allow extra steering angle.

8.3.4 Modifications of steering components are free.

[tyndago]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[courantcom]

Originally Posted by tyndago

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. ;-)

[courantcom]

Originally Posted by jdmimpreza

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.

[tyndago]

Originally Posted by courantcom

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.

[_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.

[courantcom]

Originally Posted by Formula D

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...

Originally Posted by Formula D

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.

Originally Posted by Formula D

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?

Originally Posted by Formula D

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.

Originally Posted by Formula D

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.

Originally Posted by Formula D

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...

Originally Posted by Formula D

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. ;-)

Originally Posted by Formula D

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.

[courantcom]

Originally Posted by Slapshotnerd

ah. can someone confirm?

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

Confirmed.

[courantcom]

Originally Posted by 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???????????????

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

[stedriftward]

Originally Posted by tyndago

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

[tyndago]

Originally Posted by stedriftward

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.

[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

[_PG_]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[sa-drift.com]

Originally Posted by _PG_

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.

Originally Posted by _PG_

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)