Monday, June 2, 2008
EFRA Newsletter regarding copied bodies Categories - Industry, On Road, Racing , trackback
EFRA were in contact regarding an incident that occured during the 1/8th scale European ‘B’ Championships which were held 2 weekends ago in Kirchberg Austria. The incident in question revolved around the discovery of a number of copies of the very popular Central Lola body shell that were being used by some competitors at the race who had unwittingly bought them at the trackside shop. This shells were pretty close to an exact copy and even carried the same EFRA homologation number as the original Cental shell. EFRA has ruled that these copies are illegal and are currently looking into taking further action agains the manufacturer.
Click more to read the full letter…
Dear Sportfriend,
Last week during the EC-B in Kirchberg/Austria we have discovered that the EFRA homologated body 31490 from Central has been copied and was sold for lower prices at some Austrian shops. At the moment we have no firm proof of the manufacturer that has made the copy, however we have serious suspicion against a company in Italy.
Since manufacturers pay a fee for the homologation of a body it is not fair if another company takes advantage of this and simply copies the body and try to make money. The copy can be recognized because the details are not as nice as from the original body and the homologation number is very difficult to read. The copy is also about 3 to 4mm shorter than the original.
In the next EFRA races we will have a close look to bodies and check if there are no more other bodies copied in this way. The use of this body in EFRA homologated races is forbidden and drivers who use this body will warned to use a real homologated body.
Since the name of EFRA is protected we will look for legal advice and try to find out who has made this body. If necessary we will take legal action against this manufacturer.
Furthermore we have also discovered that some tanks of 125cc during a race are getting much bigger. This is due to the plastic used, however if this heating is making the tank much bigger (about 2-3cc) EFRA cannot accept this, because this means that drivers can have advantage of the tolerance mentioned in the rule book. If during checks at technical inspection it is discovered that tanks are much too big the tanks will not be measured or a 3rd or 4th attempt after the 20 minutes mark from the first test. This would not be fair. Keep this in mind and make sure you not run on the limit.
Regards,
Sander de Graaf
EFRA 1:8 Track Section Chairman.
Click here to download the original letter (PDF)
Source: EFRA [efra.ws]
Usage »
If you republish any elements from this page on another website, including text, original pictures or formatted results please be sure to add a link back to this page as the source.
Related Posts »
Comments
I thinnk that the remarks regarding the alleged copies are outside the jurisdiction and objectives of EFRA.
It is the function of EFRA to control the specifications of equipment- Not to look after the commercial interests of manufacturers.
The EFRA number references the specifications only- It is not a brand.
If the specifications match the homologation form then the body is legal- even if it was made it in a shed at home.
What will be next, home-made shock towers that resemble those of another manufacturer.
EFRA must stay out of this and remain impartial or lose their credibility.
The source is irrelevant and of no concern of EFRA. Let the manufacturer sort it out if they feel aggrieved.
+1 JV Botha
It seems the EFRA goes down with it’s own rules…. They are nowadays an extension of the manufacturers.
I don’t agree with either of you. EFRA receive a body from a manufacturer to homologate, to ensure it fits within certain guidelines, and that manufacturer (in this case Central) pays EFRA for this process.
Another company then comes along and copies the body exactly, but poor manufacturing mean the tolerances are quite big and then are so lazy in their copying process that they use the same EFRA number that the original company paid for to state that their race body is race legal and fits to a certain spec, which isn’t true as it is different and hasn’t been tested.
Shock towers are not a valid point because these do not need to be homologated by the governing body. This is only an EFRA matter because another manufacturer, other than Central, are using a number that they did not apply for, have checked or pay for.
EFRA must follow up on the original manufacturers concerns that someone else is using their EFRA homologation number that they paid for.
If you are going to copy something, at least make an effort and remove the number first and then apply to EFRA.
I agree with Jaap and JV that the fact that the body was copied is none of EFRA’s business. This is something for the original manufacturor to pursue.
However I also agree with Eoghain that EFRA does have reason to take action as well. The EFRA name and EFRA homologation number for that specific body from that specific original manufacturor was copied as well. This is a blatant attempt to circumvent the rules which EFRA has to uphold. If no action is taken that is when, in my view, EFRA would lose credibility.
I find it curious that anyone would suggest that the unethical, illegal practice of copying another product is “none of EFRA’s business.” I’m quite happy to see that they’re finally taking action on something, although the practice of copying products has been happening for years without repercussion from any sanctioning body. Hobao and Hong Nor have built entire businesses copying Kyosho and Mugen cars. OCM, Caster Racing, TQ Racing, Nanda Racing, and many others that I can’t recall are serial copiers of other products. Heck, Jammin’ Jay flat out copied the Kyosho Inferno 7.5 and XRay have shamelessly copied the Kyosho V-One RRR, and now the Losi Eight buggy. Copies of exhaust systems has been rampant for years, and even the EFRA homologation numbers have been adopted as item numbers for the pipes. I find it curious that only now EFRA is taking a stand against this, especially when one could argue that the Central body is only a slightly modified copy of another body. I would find it refreshing to see regular action against all these companies that blatantly copy the hard work of others, but I’m curious as to why now and why something as pedestrian as a body? There are far more injuries to companies that spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop a car only to have most of the scumbag Chinese and Taiwanese companies copy it. Before any mouth-breathing moron says anything about copies being “good” in any way, let me just say that it’s complete crap and the height of stupidity for anyone to suggest it’s good. It’s theft of intellectual property, it takes resources away from the companies that actually develop product, and it lowers the quality bar in our hobby. There’s nothing good that comes from copies (except that a few morons get to save a few bucks) and I’m happy to see the sanctioning bodies take an interest in protecting genuine products. Again, I’m curious about what has taken them so long.
wcocod, please tone it down, you are entitled to your opinion but watch your language.
As I said previously EFRA only got involved because this copied body shell is carrying an EFRA homologation number that does not belong to it and the shell as a stand alone product has not been approved for racing, yet was trying to pass itself off as such.
Regarding the other claims about a certain company copying the other company’s cars and ideas, this is just how you see it. Racing cars develop and when a manufacturer creates something that is better, other companies would be stupid not to take that technology on board. If the company’s in question believed a certain part on another car to be a direct copy then they would do something about it, but they rarely if ever do, so I don’t think you should worry too much about it.
The governing bodies job is to control what’s safe and fair to be raced at their sanctioned events. Most RC products are not used at sanctioned events, so why would they waste their efforts on policing this.
When a body follows the regulations, it should NOT be homoglated, it just should be race-legal! The Homoglation is just a way to make money for the EFRA. The rules for bodies (pertaining height, width, length, etc…) are very clear, so a homolagtion is nothing else than a way to fill the pockets of the EFRA…
The EFRA should not take any action other than get rid of the homoglation ; it is costing us (as races) a lot of money since the costs for homoglation are ultimately paid by us, by buying ‘legal’ bodies. A producer will add the costs of homoglation to each and every body sold….
Hi Jaap, Through the use of homologation numbers on the bodies, the scrutineers only have to look at that number to know that the measurements of the shell, perhaps not the way it is mounted, comply to the regulations. If there were no homologation numbers, the race tech would have to measure every element of every body each time a car came off the track to make sure it fit into the rules. Also by having these numbers, when you or I go to the shop to buy a new shell, by the fact that it has this number means I have a shell that will be cleared to race.
The amount of money we are talking to homologate a shell with EFRA is not a lot of and so i dont think it greatly affects the cost of the body.
So it would appear that if the copy was submitted for homologation (with the fee of course) it would then be acceptable.
Being a copy of an already approved design- it will of course comply with the EFRA specifications.
Making the specs public so we could just cut templates to quickly check any bodies to ensure legality, would not be protectionist.
My language is fairly tame when it comes to the internet, but I guess that’s a point where we’ll have to agree to disagree. A big part of my first post pointed out that homologation numbers were also routinely misused by the aforementioned serial copycats. How many manufacturers have offered 053 and 086 pipes, using the EFRA homologation numbers? I lost count a long time ago, and that’s only one of MANY examples. With respect to the sanctioning organizations being part of an effort to limit copies, there’s ample evidence of this in many forms of motorsport. A manufacturer that feels as though their technology has been stolen can file a grievance with a manufacturer’s board and the sanctioning organization, and if the claim is found to be true, the team can be banned from racing. This is the case with Formula 1, NASCAR, LeMans, ALMS, IMSA, and more. Look what happened to McLaren for simply accepting stolen information – they were almost suspended from competition for a year, stripped of the constructor’s points, and were fined 100 million dollars; reduce to about 50 million. It’s not a foreign concept that various organizations make an effort to limit piracy for the overall health of the category, but it appears that nobody has the bollocks to enforce anything in RC. It appears that anything goes in RC, except in this one, very isolated case.
Jaap – I don’t think your point is even close to reality. It’s not up to the tech inspectors to verify every dimension of an unapproved body every time it goes on the track. EFRA is not getting rich off this, they’re simply making it easier for the tech inspectors to do their job in as little time as possible. Perhaps you have some skin in the game? It just strikes me as a biased opinion from someone who is on the body maker’s side of the issue.
Your point about the pipes with the same EFRA number is not relevant as these pipes 053, 086 etc. are made by the one company, who have obtained the homologation from EFRA but produce the same pipe for other brands under different names. Novarossi and Picco do this all the time. Novarossi make pipes for JP Racing, Max etc. and Picco make pipes for Mega, IDM, OFNA etc. Nobody in this process is stealing anything as the brands are paying the OEM for this.