Wing width

[Mike B]

This really applies to FB and FC but since it was actually applied to some FBs, I'll post it here.
Do the measurements listed in the GCR for both front and rear wing widths include fasteners or just aerodynamic devices (endplates, dive planes, etc.)? In other words, if the outside of the endplates is dead-nuts at the max, will bolt heads or mounting tubes that extend beyond make it illegal?

[R. Pare]

Fastener heads have never been included, but you need to doublecheck what it now says in the GCR - it's in there somewhere.

[jjstecher]

When I got DQed at the sprints they said fastener heads dont count but end plates and any undulation in the end plates count. Basically just the widest part of the wing from end plate to end plate is all the matters.

Now if your fasteners started to become aerodynamic devices... :P

[Joefisherff]

I thought there was a clarification last year on this which stated that the overall wing width does not include the endplates only the wing elements?

[jjstecher]

I thought there was a clarification last year on this which stated that the overall wing width does not include the endplates only the wing elements?

If that was true we wouldn't have been DQed. Everything I have seen has been end plates and wing.

[cparsons]

I recently read that rule and it states maximum width includes endplates with no mention of fasteners.

[RussMcB]

So, Mike. If you're really clever, you can fasten the end plates with something like this, except exagerate the tabs to look like dive planes.

[Joefisherff]

That they were correct in their ruling. I'll do a search and see if I can find it. I thought it was a clarification over someone submitting a question on this exact topic. And to quote one of the masters of rules interpretation, Steve Lathrop:

I have spent more time reading the rules and looking at the diagram.

You can reasonably argue that the outside of the front endplates are part of the body work ahead of the front tires. In that case there is no limit on the width. I don't buy that argument because the endplates are an integral part of the functioning of the front wing and therefore are part of the front wing. But it is reasonable.

Even with the "clarification" there is no limit on the body work ahead of the front tires. If I fashioned fairings forward of the front tires similar to what sprots racing cars have for front fenders but kept the height below the top of the front rim (F500 type nose) I would be legal. I don't see anything wrong with supporting this structure by the front wing.

It seems to me that Stohr only got the shape wrong.

I thing the "clarification" still does not have it right. It should be that nothing forward of the front tires may exceed 135 cm

As pointed out, the Stohrs only have to run thinner end plates as the wing is well within the limits. There are more cars that meet the rules than don't. But SCCA has rewritten rules to accomodate Lola and Swift so why not Stohr?

[VehDyn]

Interesting comments by Mr. Lathrop. The interesting thing about the rear wing endplates is that they are attached to the bodywork as well as the wings on the Stohr. Does that make them part of the body work? It would be an interesting discussion at tech.

Ken

[Rennie Clayton]

Interesting comments by Mr. Lathrop. The interesting thing about the rear wing endplates is that they are attached to the bodywork as well as the wings on the Stohr. Does that make them part of the body work? It would be an interesting discussion at tech.

Ken,

Yes, although I believe the rule governing rear wing width explicitly states "including endplates"...


Cheers,
Rennie

[VehDyn]

Ken,

Yes, although I believe the rule governing rear wing width explicitly states "including endplates"...


Cheers,
Rennie

Yeah, I know. I was just throwing that up to see who swings.

ken

[JakeL]

Bringing this back from the dead. I couldn't find a definitive answer in the GCR.

Endplates are included in max width, but I can't work out if fasteners are included or not for sure - I get conflicting answers from folks that tend to be in the know on that kind of thing...

Anybody care to share a definitive ruling?

-Jake

[Jnovak]

Pay your $$$ and get a ruling.

My opinion is: who actually gives a s**t?

[kea]

Fasteners are not included in the wing width measurement.

[Brett Lane]

Fasteners are not included in the wing width measurement.

Period.

[Mike Devins]

Spoke to an ex comp board member and occasional steward and he does not see that fasteners are part of the max width.

[R. Pare]

It was ruled on a few years back - don't remember when exactly - but fasteners are exempt from that rule.