BMod front splitter rules?

Printable View

08.23.22, 5:16 PM
BRODA

BMod front splitter rules?

I've read through the Solo rules and GCR, but I'm still not clear on the rules for a fronts splitter on a sports racer in BMod. I'm also not 100% sure if I'm supposed to look at the GCR from the year my car was built? Or the current-year GCR.

The 2022 GCR for P2 states:

Quote:

Overhangs: Front plus rear overhangs including wings, wing mounts, wing end plates, rear diffusersand splitters (tow hooks and jack plates are excluded provided they serve no other purpose) must notexceed 80% of the wheelbase. The difference between the front and rear overhangs must not exceed15% of the wheelbase

Is this the rule I need to pay attention to?

Thanks in advance for any guidance,
08.23.22, 9:48 PM
Jim Garry

Dave,

The final answer to this is always a letter to the SEB (https://www.crbscca.com).

That being said, the first line in Appendix A, BM is:
"All Formula Cars or Sports Racers compliant under the current Club Racing GCR Sections 9.1.1.A.1 a-h or 9.1.8.D.1 A-H, unless specifically classed elsewhere, with the following exceptions ..." (my underlining).

Regarding your second question I believe the rule you referenced regarding "Overhangs" is the control you are looking for. For a second I thought maybe splitters might be allowed at any size as long as a 50 lb weight penalty was adhered to as stated in section E. Aerodynamic restrictions for Sports Racers, subsection 2 which says:
"Cars with underbody features built in excess of P2 aerodynamic allowances (2015 GCR Section 9.1.8.D and 9.1.8.E) must meet a weight penalty of 50 lbs. and must be constructed within the following limitations ..."

But splitters aren't an underbody feature.

[Also please note that the above rule references the 2015 GCR. I don't know if P2 rules have changed since then. If they have, should the Solo Modified Advisory Committee check into this?]

I'll close with my opening ... write to the SEB in order to have full confidence in what you want to do.
08.24.22, 1:49 AM
TedV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Garry

I'll close with my opening ... write to the SEB in order to have full confidence in what you want to do.

um, uuhhh... well... maybe not.

My 30 plus year membership experience might say otherwise. As in, the rule as written may not be the rule as they intended. There is some poo hitting the fan right now in CP where someone built a car to the rules as written and whoa whoa whoa!!! we didn't actually mean you could build a car like that. "You built a car to what we said you could, we now need to change the rule to not let you do that."

In the road racing world of SCCA , One year at the ARRC and ITB car was inspected: " oh cool, the valve meets the OEM specs and you cleaned the carbon off the back side of the valve with a swirl polish. Good thinking! Congratulations on the win"... next year, same car, same head, same first place finish " oh, the valve meats OEM specs but shows evidence of swirl polish on the back side to remove carbon. Nothing in the factory manual says you can do that. Motor is illegal and you are denied the win." Just because one says you can does not mean another says you can't. It is the SCCA after all.

The letter to the MAC and SEB to clarify the interpretation of Appendix C vs GCR is from me. I polled every chief tech inspector for a year and sent in every different interpretation. Lets just say interpretations varied A LOT!! as in, what is your definition of the word "is"? Evidence shows it can vary..... A LOT!!!

In conversations with SCCA national tech staff, SEB, and Mod committee members where I stated a car built to 1980's safety standards has a performance advantage because they can place the required weight lower than a car built to todays standards which has to carry that weight up higher in roll structure and other safety items... I was looked at like I had lobsters coming out my ears because "both old and modern cars have to weigh the same weight and therefore no advantage"..... Insert Colin Chapman thinking the driver was an expendable part of the racing chassis as a sub-conversation.. Insert my shocked face that all these high ranking officials don't think it matters where the weight is placed vertically in a chassis.

In other words, do what you think you can document and argue to acceptance of your interpretation of the rule as written, in a protest committee meeting. If you think any competitor has overhangs that exceeds the rules, file a protest at nationals. I have served on the protest committee at Lincoln. Fees have been refunded because the protest was well founded, but the protested item was actually in compliance. Fees have also been refunded because.... "DAMN that shizznit is so dang illegal!!" Also, Interesting I was questioned why I was asking about chord length of a wing earlier this year. DANG what a tangled web of rules... sigh

So, getting the approval of an SEB member does not guarantee what you do will be legal. I loved being told "damn, you did your homework. OK. we will wait for the paper to fly" but before the paper had a chance to fly, the rules got changed. lmao... ah yes,
the SCCA way.

OOHHH, Jim, can we start a thread here on Apex on if there are conversations behind the memberships backs about consolidating the Mod classes without membership input? Is the SEB member pushing that just stirring up BS as they will be gone next year and just being the personality they have been for years?

Hmm.. maybe the reason I was asked to be on protest committee was because it was known I would speak my mind about the rules as written and openly discuss. YMMV
08.24.22, 12:35 PM
BRODA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Garry

"All Formula Cars or Sports Racers compliant under the current Club Racing GCR Sections 9.1.1.A.1 a-h or 9.1.8.D.1 A-H, unless specifically classed elsewhere, with the following exceptions ..." (my underlining).

Good catch! I think this probably answers my question. Thanks for the sanity check. :thumbsup:
08.24.22, 11:35 PM
griceiv

I suppose I should start this reply with the standard 'unofficial' disclaimer being one of those nasty SEB members but the picture for appendix A - Bmod.E.2 literally has the word "unrestricted" on the forward and rear overhang areas.
08.24.22, 11:39 PM
griceiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedV

OOHHH, Jim, can we start a thread here on Apex on if there are conversations behind the memberships backs about consolidating the Mod classes without membership input? Is the SEB member pushing that just stirring up BS as they will be gone next year and just being the personality they have been for years?

feel free to start the thread but *spoiler alert* nobody on the SEB is pushing to consolidate mod classes. we were as surprised by the modified advisory committee post as everyone else was.
08.25.22, 12:33 AM
TedV

I read it on the internet, it must be true. :ha::ha::ha:
08.27.22, 3:16 PM
B17overhead

Approach to rules and consolidation

I think you know this already now, but there are multiple ways of looking at clarifying rules.

Yes, you are right, as option #1, the SEB/MAC is reluctant to respond to any single member asking for clarification. Their logic (I used to hear while I was on the MAC for 9 years anyway) is that it may allow those seeking a personal private advantage in one-on-one correspondence with SEB/MAC

So, yeah, option # 2 is coming on ApexSpeed and asking those who know both the rules and intent is perhaps a more viable approach.

However, be aware, it is just as valid to go a 3d route- and this one truly has been exercised relentlessly over the years in both SCCA road racing as well as Solo:

#3 : Those who are really fighting for every advantage they can muster or who are just seeking to advance the state of the art in their class, will not ask publicly and instead just read carefully, maybe seek private opinions from those they think know more and THEN just do what they feel will survive a possible protest. Example: F440 road race constructors did this repeatedly over the years to improve those chassis over what was originally thought to be (but really wasn't) a viable set of rules regarding no suspension and no damping.

On class consolidation....

1. I think it's sensible now to let the matter drop based upon what Marshall Grice just said.

2. My own 2 centavos on Mod class consolidation:
is that if were to ever happen to my Mod class, and it made my car obsolete or forced me to start another expensive time consuming round of redevelopment
......... I would simply hang it up and put my car out front on concrete blocks as an expensive lawn ornament and go hiking instead of solo.

As I mentioned elsewhere, a truly competitive A-Mod car HAS in the past when they showed up, put about 2 seconds per course on our best B-mod car driven by Matt Ellam. I ain't ever gonna get 120 lbs. off my BM min weight chassis, and at the SAME time, build 2.5 x the BM wing area on it, and add at least 30% more allowed BM motor in an unlimited motor class to my existing BM car if it gets combined with AM.