SCCA Solo Body Requirements for C-Modified

Gary Godula and I have been discussing several items regarding bodywork for C-Modified vehicles. While it seems legal to remove the rear tail section from a C-Mod car for a weight improvement, I ask, why stop there. Why not run without the nose or cowl as well?

The GCR and Solo Rules don't indicate a minimum amount of body work required for the vehicle. Gary mentioned something about driver protection, but the body work technically doesn't provide occupant intrusion protection. For FF road race configurations, the bodywork, in my opinion, provides aerodynamic drag improvement and would be desirable for that purpose. I guess it also keeps small debris (rocks, bolts, etc) from impacting the driver. For Autocross, the only benefit the body provides is defense from cone-strikes.

Your thoughts?

Traveling at the moment, but once I’m back home I will scan/post of photo of my first FF (85 Reynard) that I ran for the full 1996 season with just the cockpit side panels. The reasons behind this were two fold; 1) the cockpit sides where the only two panels I had time to paint strip prior to the season and 2) weight.

When I purchased the car (Aug 1995), it had very nice pearl paint job that was beautiful but HEAVY. I did not care for the color and the car was overweight, so I decided to strip the bodywork down to bare fiberglass thinking I could have it done over the winter (wrong).

Running the car with just the (primed) cockpit side panels in 1996, the car made minimum weight and was pretty easy to operate (i.e. quick access to everything). As I was just learning FF, it was great. Due to the higher cockpit sides, it was plenty safe from debris (rocks, rubber, etc).

The only time this “bodywork light” configuration was questioned was when the car won the 1996 CenDiv divisional at Oscoda. After the second day of competition, two drivers who finished immediately behind the car protested it for “loss/lack of bodywork” citing some section of the GCR. The protest was thrown out on a technicality (filed late; had to be filed after FIRST day of competition) but the Chief of Protest noted “it would have stood if filed in time”. I never understood why but I didn’t really pursue it as I knew that the car would be run with full bodywork the next season.

The above said, I did seek a clarification from the National office prior to running the car at the 1997 Solo Nationals regarding running the car without the bodywork enclosing the engine (even sent an example photo). By that point, I completed a full rebuild of the car dropping some weight (mainly swapping steel for aluminum floor plan), but the tail was still a super heavy (even without paint). By running without bodywork enclosing the engine, the car could make minimum weight (with a full tank of fuel). I was granted a clarification that, yes, the car was legal without bodywork enclosing the engine.

All that stated, I didn’t pursue the matter any further as by the 1998 I finally completed the car by having a new lightweight tail made along with full paint / graphics. With minimum fuel load (2 gal), the car would make minimum weight in its full bodywork configuration (photo attached).

Perhaps it’s time to send the SEB/MAC a request for clarification on the subject. Hmm…

BTW: I’m the chair (for now) of the MAC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patbarbermi

...for a weight improvement...

---

Maybe to make minimum weight, but I'm sure that can be accomplished by other means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patbarbermi

Why not run without the nose or cowl as well?

---

That doesn't sound very aerodynamic to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -pru-

...ran for the full 1996 season with just the cockpit side panels.

---

Let's go to the book!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2016 SCCA General Competition Rules

C. Body
1. Definition of Bodywork
Internally: All visible parts of the passenger compartment.
a. The bodywork opening giving access to the cockpit shall have the following minimal dimensions:
Length: 60cm (23.622 inches), Width: 45cm (17.72 inches)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2016 SCCA National Solo Rules

18.4 SPECIALS
A. Bodywork
1. Must be made of metal, fiberglass, or other suitable fire resistant materials.
The sides, front, and back of the cockpit area must be at least as high as the driver’s waist.

---

So it meets the GCR's minimum opening size, but it fails A-mod rules without a front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -pru-

...protested it for “loss/lack of bodywork”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2016 SCCA General Competition Rules

9.3.32. LOSS OF BODYWORK
All major body components such as front and rear hoods, fenders, doors, and windscreens shall be maintained in normal position throughout the competition. If loss of bodywork is a safety hazard, the car may be blackflagged. A car completing a competition with bodywork missing may be penalized.

---

All major body components (the side panels) were maintained in normal position throughout the competition. Nothing was lost or missing, nothing was a safety hazard. Sounds okay to me.

I'm not seeing anything preventing removal of all panels except the nose and sides. However, you would likely be less aerodynamic without those panels, which may or may not negate any weight savings.

Hello Gentlemen,

"Perhaps it’s time to send the SEB/MAC a request for clarification on the subject"

BUT! I will say this, we all know that body work has weight to it and to take it off on your 1st or 2nd runs "Could mean your under weight" so what could be a good Idea for everyone would be "if the car would have to run without body work" I would say for that run the car would have to run across the scales.

So lets put this way, my CM car weighs in at 1106 (my goal) and have come across the scales at 1102 and just my rear body work weighs in at 12lbs I would be 6lbs under weight. So if I run without my rear body work on my 2nd run and it's the fastest does it count?

So if those runs without your rear body work or "any body work" are your best runs on your first or second run at a National tour or at the National's and you don't run across the scales mainly because you don't have to come across the scales on those 1st and 2nd runs then they should not count if you don't have body work on.

I remember seeing Brandon Lavender CM car going out on course with no rear body work only to find out that his gas cable went bad? I'm sure he just barely got it back together for his run before his mechanical time limit was up and I can't imagine that was his fastest run because that would have been a serious distraction was it like 2012 or what year was that?

I found that running without the front body work I get hit with lots of rocks and stuff and could be a safety problem get hit with something big coming off the front tire could be bad. I think all body work need to be on cars at all times.

Ben

My take on this discussion is that, for the C Modified class, the class is restricted to (brand-specific homologation-approved) Formula Fords (and the Solo Vees) and that the Formula Fords had to be GCR legal with the allowed exceptions of fuel cell, rain lights, GCR legal dated belts, mirrors, ect. Absence of cockpit body work is not one of the allowed modifications in the solo rule book. Therefore, all Formula Fords would need to run the bodywork that met the GCR requirements allowed for SCCA homologation. It comes back to, what are the GCR bodywork requirements for formula cars.

That said, I have poured over the GCR and it gives many maximum and minimum dimensions for specific parts of the bodywork, but I cannot find any part of the GCR rules, in the FF/FC area, which mandates bodywork above the side impact protection and frontal bulkhead protection for the driver. I cannot find the General Formula Car construction rules, which was formerly not part of the area for the specific formula car classes, as it may state overall bodywork and driver protection requirements. Does anyone know where that section of rules is located?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneWayOut

Maybe to make minimum weight, but I'm sure that can be accomplished by other means.

All major body components (the side panels) were maintained in normal position throughout the competition. Nothing was lost or missing, nothing was a safety hazard. Sounds okay to me.

I'm not seeing anything preventing removal of all panels except the nose and sides. However, you would likely be less aerodynamic without those panels, which may or may not negate any weight savings.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2016 SCCA National Solo Rules18.4 SPECIALS
A. Bodywork
1. Must be made of metal, fiberglass, or other suitable fire resistant materials.

The sides, front, and back of the cockpit area must be at least as high as the driver’s waist.

---

Some good information here. What is interesting, is that the aluminum side pods are as high as the top frame rail on my Reynard and would meet the minimum requirement for A-Mod as they are higher than my waist (while seated). My Reynard would meet this requirement without the fiberglass cowl.

I appreciate all the input to my question. In the end, I am fond of the shapes of the various Formula F vehicles which have been produced. I think the cars should run with a full compliment of body panels. However, I am a heavier driver, so going beyond the loosing weight off my person, I am looking for other low cost weight reduction ideas. My car weighs in at 1157 with my big fat butt in the seat. The rear cover/tail contributes ~ 21 lbs to that number. According to the rules, I am free to remove it, at the cost of my vanity. At further cost to my vanity and reduction in cone strike protection, I can remove the cowl and nose and get to a competitive weight ( ~ 1107). I will look funny. I will apparently meet the requirement for A-Mod due to the existence of the aluminum side panels.

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...id=79166&stc=1
This is an ugly car.

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...id=79167&stc=1
Much better looking with the body attached.

I guess I should cut back a little at the table. :)

not my circus/not my monkey, but if the front bulkhead is above the driver's waist i'd say you are GTG. If you need a couple more inches, then aluminum duct tape or flashing weighs nothing.

With the exception of huge inclined planes, I doubt theres enough time over the drag rise speed in a typical solo course to matter vs the acceleration you get from the weight reduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

...but if the front bulkhead is above the driver's waist I'd say you are GTG.

---

Yes, I recall that being my interpretation as well when I ran my 85 Reynard with just the side panels. In my case, the front bulk was indeed above waist line. Example photo attached (though it does not show the front bulk head).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patbarbermi

I appreciate all the input to my question. In the end, I am fond of the shapes of the various Formula F vehicles which have been produced. I think the cars should run with a full compliment of body panels. However, I am a heavier driver, so going beyond the loosing weight off my person, I am looking for other low cost weight reduction ideas. My car weighs in at 1157 with my big fat butt in the seat. The rear cover/tail contributes ~ 21 lbs to that number. According to the rules, I am free to remove it, at the cost of my vanity. At further cost to my vanity and reduction in cone strike protection, I can remove the cowl and nose and get to a competitive weight ( ~ 1107). I will look funny. I will apparently meet the requirement for A-Mod due to the existence of the aluminum side panels.

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...id=79166&stc=1
This is an ugly car.

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...id=79167&stc=1
Much better looking with the body attached.

I guess I should cut back a little at the table. :)

---

Lots of weight saving I see on that car... Scalloped rotors, new lighter wheels, alloy calipers... Aluminum head? you won't meet minimum weight without weight savings on the driver, but that will only improve your performance overall..

That's not the point...the point is, are we required to run bodywork, other than for vehicle identification and obligatory graphics. As the GCR and solo rule books are currently written, the answer would be no. Does anyone have any evidence contrary to that?

The FIA has rules that govern the placement of bodywork.. http://www.f1600series.com/pdfs/techspecseuro.pdf

Somewhere buried deep in the GCR is a rule that said if it's not in the GCR refer to the FIA rules.. trying to find that rule but it's difficult because of the massive effort to push every open wheel racer into an F4 chassis..

No such FIA reference in the GCR for FF bodywork. Where the FIA IS referenced is easily found by doing a search for "FIA" in the digital GCR. The PDF you quote has nothing to do with the Club, but only to do with Euro-spec cars entered in the FRP F1600 series.

Nothing in the GCR states that ANY bodywork has to be present, other than the required side intrusion panels and the required ( '86 and newer) front attenuators - both stated in the FC/FF rules.

There IS a rule about "missing bodywork" ( 9.3.32), but it would be rather hard in a protest to find that to be a valid rule when no rule requiring the "missing" bodywork is specifically stated anywhere in the GCR for FF.

There may be an expectation for all bodywork to be on the car, but expectations are not enforcable.

So, how does one place the required TireRack sticker on the car for National events? I guarantee you won't be allowed to run without the sticker.

a plate? stuck on the tire sidewall? valve cover?

Where the event stickers are required to be placed, while relevant, is a different subject than what is required by the GCR.

What are the placement requirements? And how exactly are they worded?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

Where the event stickers are required to be placed, while relevant, is a different subject than what is required by the GCR.

What are the placement requirements? And how exactly are they worded?

---

a. The Tire Rack® windshield decal (1) – The Tire Rack® windshield decal is to be placed at the top of the windshield; no other decal/advertisement is to be visible on the windshield. Drivers of Prepared or Modified vehicles without windshields or with plastic windshields may place the windshield decal on/near the front which must be visible and legible from a frontal view. Only formula cars and karts may use the smaller decal.
b. The Tire Rack® SCCA® Solo® National Championship event decals (2) – The event decals are to be displayed on the upper rear portion of each front fender or the upper front portion of each front door. Formula cars and karts should affix this decal adjacent to the number and class designation; these decals must be visible from a side view.
c. SCCA® w/wheel decal (1) – The SCCA® w/wheel decal is to be placed on or near the front bumper and must be visible from a frontal view.

IMHO, there should be a Solo rule created requiring front and side bodywork in CM for FF and Vees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Garry

IMHO, there should be a Solo rule created requiring front and side bodywork in CM for FF and Vees.

---

If that is desired by the competitors, then someone in the class needs to write up a rules change request (or a clarification, which I believe can be made effective immediately, if that is desired), with the relevant GCR and Solo rules to justify the question, and submit it to the CRB.

In my mind, it is indeed an open question, especially as I have seen FF's in Solo in the past run without a lot of their bodywork ( though that was a few decades ago), and can be put to rest quickly with minimal effort.

Of course, for the Tire Rack Nationals, they could force the change immediately at their events by simply stating that their decals have to be placed on the bodywork aft of the main hoop (or something to that effect). For every car I can thing of (at the moment), that would force the inclusion of the engine cover on formula cars (though that might be an issue with many A and B Modifieds).

Must have been more tired than I thought when reading 9.3.32. Upon re-reading it, I believe that the correct interpretation is that whatever bodywork is attached to the car during a competition must be securely maintained in that position during the event. BUT, it looks in the second and third sentences that a loss of that attached bodywork does not automatically incur a penalty - eg - that it would be up to the Stewards to decide that.

It clearly does not state that whatever bodywork the car was produced with has to actually be on the car during an event.

9.3.32. LOSS OF BODYWORK
All major body components such as front and rear hoods, fenders, doors, and windscreens shall be maintained in normal position throughout the competition. If loss of bodywork is a safety hazard, the car may be black-flagged. A car completing a competition with bodywork missing may be penalized.


For Solo cars that are produced without bodywork ( A and B Mod?), since the car never HAD any (or certain pieces of) bodywork, it could not be determined to be "missing" - something that never existed cannot be "missing" unless there was a rule stating that it had to be there in the first place.

Most likely this rule was worded this way so the if a car started an event with full bodywork, but was hit such that some of it was torn off, it did not incur an automatic penalty or black-flagging unless the Stewards decided that for that car to continue would be a safety hazard.

So, it look at this time that you could indeed run without an engine cover, BUT the Stewards COULD penalize you if they wanted to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Garry

IMHO, there should be a Solo rule created requiring front and side bodywork in CM for FF and Vees.

---

It will never happen Jim, for a variety of reasons. If it is not required in the GCR, solo is not going to add to it. If A-Mod and specials do not need if for safety reasons, there is no way that it is needed for any other Modified class. Adding a provision into the GCR to require bodywork for homologated formula cars is a stretch at best. Better to just leave it lay or let Mr Pare handle it. It obviously not a problem.

That, and, there are so many different and custom bodywork packages for most FFs, you cannot hold anyone to one particular set of bodywork or another, or a lack thereof. For example, there are 3 different noses, 2 sets of cowlings, 2 different windshields, 3 different side pods, 2 different scoops, 3 different engine covers, 2 tails, plus a tailless option, for my Reynard. I have customized all of the pieces that I use for fitment. To meet the current GCR, I do not need any of it other than for vehicle identification and obligatory graphics, which I could make work on the side intrusion panels.

This discussion started with Pat wondering if he had to run the 22 lb tail for his car. The answer is obviously no. We escalated the discussion from there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary Godula

To meet the current GCR, I do not need any of it other than for vehicle identification and obligatory graphics, which I could make work on the side intrusion panels.

---

Correct - the only GCR required panels NOT allowed to be removed via the Solo rules are the side intrusion panels - the front attenuator is specifically allowed to be removed. Nothing is stated about any other body panels - for some reason removal of the engine cover is stated as allowed for FV's, but not addressed at all in the Cmod rules for FF's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

Correct - the only GCR required panels NOT allowed to be removed via the Solo rules are the side intrusion panels - the front attenuator is specifically allowed to be removed.

---

Where? Post the exact wording that says this.

Side panels are not "side intrusion panels". These are two totally different things. In the photos of the Reynard, the side panels are fiberglass (painted) and the intrusion panels are aluminum (unpainted). My Van Diemen does not have intrusion panels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary Godula

It will never happen Jim, for a variety of reasons. If it is not required in the GCR, solo is not going to add to it.

---

That's incorrect. I have served on the Solo Events Board and Modified Advisory Committee. Solo rules do add to what's in the GCR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary Godula

Better to just leave it lay or let Mr Pare handle it

---

My proposal was for a rules change in the SOLO rules, not the GCR. Mr. Pare has no position in Solo. We can't "let Mr. Pare handle it". Are you under the impression that he is on the SEB?


Regarding your last paragraph about custom bodywork making a rule about bodywork unworkable is missing the point. My proposal did not at all suggest a requirement for original bodywork. The rule I'm proposing would only state that "bodywork" is required at the front and sides of a CM car.

I'm very familiar with the FF rules in the GCR as my SEB was the one that created the CM category as it is now comprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

If that is desired by the competitors, then someone in the class needs to write up a rules change request (or a clarification, which I believe can be made effective immediately, if that is desired), with the relevant GCR and Solo rules to justify the question, and submit it to the CRB.

---

If it's just a clarification, then it can be written and included in a Fastrack.

If it's a rules change, it will have to go through posting in Fastrack with a request for input, then more deliberation, then if approved sending it on the BOD with another notice in Fastrack. Then the next year is becomes a rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

Of course, for the Tire Rack Nationals, they could force the change immediately at their events by simply stating that their decals have to be placed on the bodywork aft of the main hoop (or something to that effect). For every car I can thing of (at the moment), that would force the inclusion of the engine cover on formula cars (though that might be an issue with many A and B Modifieds).

---

This is incorrect. An event supplemental rule can't change a class rule that exists in the Solo Rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneWayOut

Where? Post the exact wording that says this.

Side panels are not "side intrusion panels". These are two totally different things. In the photos of the Reynard, the side panels are fiberglass (painted) and the intrusion panels are aluminum (unpainted). My Van Diemen does not have intrusion panels.

---

If your VD is a pre-'86 model, it does not need them. If it an '86 or newer, it almost definitely HAS to have intrusion panels of one of the types in the GCR FC/FF section.

Side panels with the required kevlar are most definitely "side intrusion panels" and are specifically listed as one of the options in the GCR, as well as using a prescribed thickness of aluminium as the intrusion panels. If your VD is of one of the newer models, Ralph Firman stated personally to me that they used the required kevlar layers in the side panlels to make them conform to the intrusion panel requirements instead of going the alu panel route.

the CGR states, in part:

e.

The area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the front instrument/dash roll hoop
bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead shall be protected by at least one of the following methods to
prevent the intrusion of objects into the cockpit. Panels may extend to the forward most bulkhead, but must otherwise comply with these regulations.

1. Panel(s), minimum of either .060 inch heat treated aluminum (6061-T6 or equivalent) or 18 gauge
steel, attached to the outside of the main frame tubes.

2. Reinforced body, consisting of at least two layers of 5 ounce, bi-directional, laminated Kevlar
material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame. (5 or more
layers are highly recommended.) For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than 6 inch
centers. The steel tubes used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the
roll hoop brace material.

3...
4...

The solo rules state: ( my emphasis added).


18.3 FORMULA CARS
Single-seat, open-wheeled cars are referred to as Formula cars and are as-signed to Modified classes B (BM), C (CM), and F (FM). BM cars must comply with the current year Club Racing GCR (except as noted by the Solo® Rules
including Appendix A) and the competitor must indicate on his entry form to which set of specifications the vehicle was prepared. CM and FM cars must conform to the current year Club Racing GCR except Solo® Vee and Formula440/500 vehicles which are allowed the additional modifications and exceptions listed in Appendix A. Formula cars not conforming to the GCR eligible for BM, CM, or FM are considered Specials. The competitor must have the referenced GCR in his possession during the event. Exceptions to the GCR are as follows:

A. Wing area shall be computed as described herein.
B. Front impact attenuation device (GCR Section 9.4.5.G) does not apply.

Appendix A states:


A. Modified Class C (CM) allows the Solo® Vee and the following SCCA® Club
Racing GCR-compliant cars: Spec Racer Ford (SRF), Formula F (FF). Within
the limitations of the GCR, additional frame bracing, suspension and steer-
ing 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.
Exceptions to the Club Racing GCR for all cars in this class:
1. Spec tire requirements do not apply.
2. Formula F (FF) weight with driver, minimum:
Ford Cortina engine (lbs.)

Note the "except for those safety items which the Solo rules do not require" can easily be interpreted as referring to a list of items not necessary ( such as the time-limited seat belts and the attenuation structure the GCR requires), and the side intrusion panels are not among those listed items (see the end of 18.3 that only lists the attenuator as exempt) - the SOLO Board took the time to list the GCR-mandated specific safety items that are exempt in solo, and side intrusion panels ARE NOT included on that list.

Personally, I could care less about all this, but the question was asked about the legality of not running the bodywork, and as such, these are the rules you have to live by. If there is any question about whether or not side intrusion panels are required, it is easy enough to get the solo board to clarify it and add it in to the rules.

In Solo, the NEED for side intrusion panels is extremely remote, though the desirability of at least something on the sides to keep you from getting pelted with rocks off the front tires is high!

This was a discussion, not an issue that needs to be fixed. I do not see a need to add anything to the solo rules, and I certainly wouldn't be supportive of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Garry

This is incorrect. An event supplemental rule can't change a class rule that exists in the Solo Rules.

---

Sorry, but it is correct:

As per the Solo rules:


I.1.2 Revision of the Solo ® Rules

The SCCA® may revise these rules or issue supplements to them at any time via Tech Bulletins in the official SCCA® publication and/or on the official SCCA® website (www.scca.com). All supplements will have a published effective date.
If circumstances create a situation where a rule clarification or change is found necessary to be implemented immediately, the SCCA® Board of Directors may issue a memorandum stating the change and its effective date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

Sorry, but it is correct:

As per the Solo rules:


I.1.2 Revision of the Solo ® Rules

The SCCA® may revise these rules or issue supplements to them at any time via Tech Bulletins in the official SCCA® publication and/or on the official SCCA® website (www.scca.com). All supplements will have a published effective date.
If circumstances create a situation where a rule clarification or change is found necessary to be implemented immediately, the SCCA® Board of Directors may issue a memorandum stating the change and its effective date.

---

Sorry back at you. Try changing the rules for a specific class at the National Championships using a supp. You'll be in more hot water than an overheated CMod car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Garry

Sorry back at you. Try changing the rules for a specific class at the National Championships using a supp. You'll be in more hot water than an overheated CMod car.

---

Is there something about "The SCCA® may revise these rules or issue supplements to them at any time..." that you do not comprehend?

Whether or not it is desirable is a different matter.

Not gonna happen unless a serious safety issue is discovered.

You used to be respectful while making your comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Garry

Not gonna happen unless a serious safety issue is discovered.

You used to be respectful while making your comments.

---

When people refuse to understand clearly written rules, my patience with them is sorely tested.

But I will agree that it is most likely that nothing will happen unless some safety issue crops up - but understand that that allowance by you acknowledges that the rules can allow it to happen.

Your last sentence reveals your need to win, even a silly online discussion.
Makes it distasteful to engage.

oh good lord.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary Godula

This was a discussion, not an issue that needs to be fixed. I do not see a need to add anything to the solo rules, and I certainly wouldn't be supportive of it.

---

I would agree.

I see a few interesting things in the Solo rules and have added emphasis in a couple places.

------------------------------------------
Within the limitations of the GCR, additional frame bracing, suspension and steer*ing changes, relocation of ancillary components (radiators, batteries, etc.), and their associated mounting brackets is permitted...

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.

Bodywork
Pursuant to retaining consistency with the intent of Club Racing regulations, the SEB is concerned about modifications to bodywork for the pur*pose of enhancing down force. CM Formula Ford competitors wishing to make body alterations to their cars should request a ruling on the desired configuration if there is any doubt as to its legality.

Formula F Bodywork Restrictions
Members who have questions concerning the legality of a particular car’s configuration should submit detailed photographs and/or drawings of the car to the SEB (Solo® Events Board) in order to determine if the specific bodywork of concern is considered compliant for CM.
------------------------------------------------------

In RR the cars are assumed to have bodywork. Is that more, or less, than “intent”?

SOLO has the explicitly stated intent of preventing solo specials and retaining cars that could head back over to the track and go Club Racing. That may be naive, even ignoring bodywork and safety equipment, but it does indicate the intent. I think you can make the case that together the GCR and Solo rules intend that CM cars have bodywork and that in Solo it can differ from RR bodywork, but nor by “too much”. One clue is that it took so long for this question to even come up.

I think though it would stretching for the SEB to force this with just a clarification.

Peter Raymond

If my memory has not failed me I recall the issue of FF body work in CM came to a head in the 90's when Don Ahrens fabricated a continuous wedge shape body, from nose to tail, for his Hawke DL-17.

This body shape would not have worked in road racing.

Hence the rules are as we see them now.

New to this class and I am not a serious competitor. So I ask this is my car "safe" in this condition. I have the nose and the rest of the panels I just choose not to use them, less parts to deal with when loading up trailer.http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...id=79270&stc=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeE

New to this class and I am not a serious competitor. So I ask this is my car "safe" in this condition. I have the nose and the rest of the panels I just choose not to use them, less parts to deal with when loading up trailer. http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...id=79270&stc=1

---

Bodywork aside - please put that visor down! The number of rock chips on my visor after even a few autocrosses is astounding. Sticky tires throw rocks very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Garry

IMHO, there should be a Solo rule created requiring front and side bodywork in CM for FF and Vees.

---

Jim Garry, I agree with you about having body work on our car like a Nose, Front and side body work below the mid section of the car frame to protect engine components from a cone, I would say though that the CM competitors should have a say if you think that running your car without the body work mentioned above could be a safety concern.

I showed up to the National's without my nose this year (don't ask or I'll give you the very long story) and just knowing all the master cly were up front like that if you hit one cone with the potential of knocking off one of the reservoirs and losing my brakes was high, so we made a nose for those 2 days, me .02 is the body work protects the vital components on your FF and should not be off under competition runs.

but the upper engine cover shouldn't be a big deal though and if time is a problem with you getting out on your last run I'm good with that.

Ben

Interesting thoughts are forming in my head. I have a 17-lb fiberglass engine cover with a floppy tail* that does nothing for downforce. A light version that wouldn't have to cope with 100+ mph wind loads in track use could be made substantially lighter, removing weight from above the CG and helping move the CG forwards with ballast.

Only problem: I've never done any composite work before. ;) Time to learn something new!

To the purists: I am not molesting the original bodywork. I'd make new.

Corey

* strengthening ribs were trimmed to clear redesigned rear pushrod arms

Should be nothing wrong with that at all, and if it were me, would be one of the first things i would look at for shedding weight.

The MAC (Modified Advisory Committee) has sent the following to the SEB (Solo Events Board) regarding CM bodywork:

"MAC recommends the following Member Advisory:

Pursuant to retaining consistency with the intent of Club Racing regulations, the SEB is concerned about removal of bodywork for the sole purpose of reducing car weight. CM Formula Ford competitors wishing to make body alterations to their cars should request a ruling on the desired configuration if there is any doubt as to its legality."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -pru-

The MAC (Modified Advisory Committee) has sent the following to the SEB (Solo Events Board) regarding CM bodywork:

---

Playing devil's advocate here: What requirements exist in the GCR or Solo rules for bodywork to be unchanged? If there's no requirement for bodywork to be unchanged from the original supplied with the vehicle, why do we need to clear any changes with the SEB? I know my Citation's body is missing the clear windscreen and has had rear body notches added to clear the rear rocker arms and a different header than original, which seem reasonable.

Does the SEB pass along car-by-car allowances? I'm picturing sending pictures and a letter and getting "thank you for your input" in reply.

Not attacking - I'm genuinely curious as a relative newcomer in this class.

Corey

Actually, within the GCR for FF, as well as in the Cars and Equipment section, there are no requirement for ANY bodywork to be present - it only gives dimensional and material requirements for any bodywork that is actually present.

The closest thing to being a requirement for bodywork is the last sentence in:

9.3.32. LOSS OF BODYWORK
All major body components such as front and rear hoods, fenders, doors, and windscreens shall be maintained
in normal position throughout the competition. If loss of bodywork is a safety hazard, the car may be black-
flagged. A car completing a competition with bodywork missing may be penalized.

But even that is wide open to interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

Actually, within the GCR for FF, as well as in the Cars and Equipment section, there are no requirement for ANY bodywork to be present - it only gives dimensional and material requirements for any bodywork that is actually present.

The closest thing to being a requirement for bodywork is the last sentence in:

9.3.32. LOSS OF BODYWORK
All major body components such as front and rear hoods, fenders, doors, and windscreens shall be maintained
in normal position throughout the competition. If loss of bodywork is a safety hazard, the car may be black-
flagged. A car completing a competition with bodywork missing may be penalized.

But even that is wide open to interpretation.

---

Not to mention there is a minimum weight limit that prevents running without body work from reducing the weight of the car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -pru-

CM Formula Ford competitors wishing to make body alterations to their cars should request a ruling on the desired configuration if there is any doubt as to its legality."

---

Wow, what a terrible idea. Every person that has any sort of modified bodywork now has to get it approved? I would say that at least 50% of the 94-98 Van Diemens have some type of modification to their nose or engine cover.

Why are we trying to change the rules here? What does someone have to gain by removing the body panels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by captain_pants

If there's no requirement for bodywork to be unchanged from the original supplied with the vehicle, why do we need to clear any changes with the SEB?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneWayOut

Why are we trying to change the rules here? What does someone have to gain by removing the body panels?

---

Please note that no rule changes are being proposed; it is to advise CM competitors to follow up with the SEB if they have questions regarding removing bodywork to make weight. The first post of the thread being an example; running a 84 Reynard without the tail to lighten the car.

In short, the MAC believes the intent of the GCR is have FF/CM cars compete with bodywork. That is, removing and/or modifying bodywork for weight purposes is understandable but running with zero bodywork is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -pru-

The MAC (Modified Advisory Committee) has sent the following to the SEB (Solo Events Board) regarding CM bodywork:

"MAC recommends the following Member Advisory:

Pursuant to retaining consistency with the intent of Club Racing regulations, the SEB is concerned about removal of bodywork for the sole purpose of reducing car weight. CM Formula Ford competitors wishing to make body alterations to their cars should request a ruling on the desired configuration if there is any doubt as to its legality."

---

Looks like someone sent a letter...

Modified Category
#24775 Bodywork in CM
Per the SEB, the requested modification would not be compliant with the rules. In particular the member is referred to Appendix A, class C Modified, paragraph A, last sentence: “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.”

I will just leave this here....

Bak when I had the 85 renard it was very heavy. I removed the side panels and htthen painted it all flat black with a few highlights of safety orange. Mark Lamm told me to figure it out how to get the weight good. CMods are supposed to be pretty. So I got all the aluminum parts I could find and did it right.