CM Rules Cleanup/Simplify
In an effort to cleanup and simplify CM rules, letter #33423 has been submitted to the Solo Events Board (SEB).
Quote:
Letter ID Number: #33423
Title: CM Rule Cleanup/Simplify
Class: CM
Request:
Cleanup/Simplify the SCCA National Solo Rules Appendix A MODIFIED CLASS C (CM) rules as outlined below.
~ Remove the following from paragraph A:
“Within the limitations of the GCR, additional frame bracing, suspension and steering changes, relocation of ancillary components (radiators, batteries, etc.), and their associated mounting brackets is permitted. Nothing in these rules is to be construed as overruling any GCR construction requirements or limitations except for those safety items which the Solo® Rules do not require. The purpose of these rules is to maintain the value of these cars for Club Racing and therefore their market value, and to prevent special Solo®-only Formula F vehicles.”
Given that CM specifically calls out that Formula F must be GCR-compliant, the above wording is verbose and unnecessary.
~ Remove the following section (3):
“3. Only cars produced by the following manufacturers are eligible for FF in this class: ADF, Alexis, Anson, Caldwell, Citation, Crossle, Du lon, Eagle, Elden, Forsgrini, Gemini, Hawke, Konig-Heath, LeGrand, Lola, Lotus, March, Merlyn, Mondiale, Piper, PRS, Reynard, Royale, Stohr, Swift, Tiga, Titan, Van Diemen, Winkleman, and Zink. The SEB may add to this list at any time, effective upon notification of the membership.”
That is, ALL GCR-compliant Formula F should be eligible for CM; there is no need keep and/or maintain the above listing.
Thank you for your consideration.
Chris Pruett
50 CM
1985 Swift DB1
What good are tire blankets?
So I still question what good tire blankets are or were. Years ago, one of my codrivers went to great lengths to make a tight fitting set of blankets for the Reynard, and I constantly checked the tire temps with and without the tire blankets. The tires were always warmer without the tire blankets with whatever sunshine was available shining on them. Even running first heat on a colder and not very sunny day, the tires were always warmer without the blankets. We quickly abandon them, and I never used them after that experiment.
That said, I see no purpose in changing the current CMod rules. Part of the appeal of the class is the rules stability, which tends to bring parity and certainly reduces costs. Rules changes usually has costs associated with them, either by forcing an upgrade or parts change, or by forcing a change to the new "hot set-up" to be or remain "competitive". It doesn't matter whether you are competing in Club Racing, Solo, Rally, Rally Cross, or any other form of racing, rules changes means someone has to pay for something, which means that the rules change has to have some purpose. Right now, I do not see a purpose in anything that is being proposed.
To continue and grow the class, we need more cars, and really need more drivers, and more people sharing cars, both in the open and ladies classes. To do that, we need more open discussion on events and bringing cars out, more comradery, and more car sharing. We do not rules changes.
Homologation Purpose and Process
Quote:
Originally Posted by
R. Pare
You misunderstand homologation.
The only things homologation are concerned about are the general construction per GCR requirements for that class - tube frame per the GCR - the fuel cell and enclosure, cockpit opening, the roll hoop construction per the GCR and any other mandatory safety items. Radiator location, whether or not the car has or had sidepods, etc, and other ancillary items are not controlled by homologation, so they are free to be moved/changed/deleted at any time, as long as they do not pose a safety issue or reside outside of the vehicle maximum dimensions.
And yes, a Solo Special FF could be made right now or even with those paragraphs removed, and be perfectly legal, as long as it met the GCR requirements for the class.
So Richard, I am curious about the homologation purpose and process. How does one apply for vehicle or chassis homologation, who performs the inspection and approves the homologation, and what purpose does it fulfill in the vehicle authorization process? I see cars like Steve Roux's Wynvern (which apparently started life as a European Spec Renault chassis) and Mike Sauce's rebranded and highly modified Van Diemen, and I am curious how those chassis' are inspected, homologated, and authorized to be issued a log book and be allowed to race. When my Reynard was converted from FC to FF, it had to be rehomologated, so I assume that the homologation is class-specific. What prevents vehicle modifications after the homologation is completed?
Log books and therefore homologation paperwork is not a requirement in Autocross/solo, so how would any such chassis construction rules be enforced other than limiting the allowed vehicles to the authorized constructor brands whose vehicles were all previously homologated?
Ok, So Homologation Certification is not a Tech Inspection
Hi Richard,
Thank you for clarifying the homologation process. I was not sure if it was an actual physical tech inspection of the vehicle or production run of vehicles, or, as you are indicating, a documentation and review process to ensure that all of the class and construction/safety requirements are met as the vehicle(s) is/are constructed or revised.
Since both FC and FF now have several engine choices, do the vehicle need to be rehomologated if they change power plant type, but remain in the same class (ie Honda for Kent, Zetec for Pinto)?
When performing the annual club racing tech inspection, the only time I have seen the inspector pull out the tube size/thickness gauge is when the car was repaired after a major incident or if there was some question on the homologation. For those of us with repeated annual techs, it is literally a 10 minute process....go thru the safety gear, check all the tags, verify the fire system charge, check the rain light and kill switch function, and review any changes and recorded incidents from the previous tech.
In solo, basically the initial rules were written around the premise of an older retired Formula Ford being used for autocross, and the solo rules state that the car needed to be GCR compliant with the exception of not needing a fuel cell, fire system. current belts, rain lights, mirrors, and the such, and that the spec radial tire rule with associated minimum weight increase was waived. Log books and the related homologation paperwork are also not required or obviously tracked as it is in club racing. Tech inspection varies with SCCA region/sponsoring car club as they may have an annual solo tech inspection available to streamline the at-event process, but it is obviously not real thorough as most solo tech inspectors do not know how to tech a non-street car.
Several of us were bouncing our cars between club racing and solo constantly and thus the cars would always be kept in full GCR compliance. This used to be a quick conversion (at least with my Reynard) prior to the damned spec radial tire implementation, with only the gearing and chassis set-up changing between the two disciplines. Change the gears, the springs, the rear bar, remove/install the droop limiter, realign, install the R25 or R35 tires, and 6 man hours later the car was back in the trailer ready for the next event. I have run both disciplines successfully on the same weekend. That process is a lot more involved now due to the radial tires requiring a lot more changes on my car (read front roll center/front bar/castor/upright/brake changes). The newer cars with the LD200 gearbox need the final drive changed between club racing and solo as the ultra-low integral shaft gearing is not available as it is for the Mk9, so those vehicles tend to be dedicated to one discipline or the other throughout a season.