Stohrs Swift DB4 J.R. Osborne

[Rennie Clayton]

Righteous dude........

Oh, he's very popular Ed. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, ********s - they all adore him. They think he's a righteous dude.

Paul, I'd translate this from crazy to English, but I'm too tired. In the meantime, don't feel too bad. I myself still lack an account with Gmail, Facebook, MySpace, iTunes, or YouTube...and I have no idea what RSS or Twitter means.

Crazy?! More like awesome... and these quotes are all 23 years old, FYI.

Paul: the phrase "Bueller... Bueller... Bueller" is an allegorical query of whether somebody - anybody - is going to answer the question. It's source is a cult-favorite movie from the 80's called "Ferris Bueller's Day Off".

/now I feel dirty for having explained it...

[cooleyjb]

Oh, he's very popular Ed. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, ********s - they all adore him. They think he's a righteous dude.




Crazy?! More like awesome... and these quotes are all 23 years old, FYI.

Paul: the phrase "Bueller... Bueller... Bueller" is an allegorical query of whether somebody - anybody - is going to answer the question. It's source is a cult-favorite movie from the 80's called "Ferris Bueller's Day Off".

/now I feel dirty for having explained it...

You should feel dirtier for pointing out it's 23 years old. Ouch.

[bill gillespie]

Ren & Stan,

Gummie bear Mr Rooney?.......they're nice and warm......ever smelled a real school bus?

[Lincspeed]

WOW - what happened to this thread??? I keep hoping for some more shots of Wayne's new FA...isn't that where we were going?

[timos]

Once someone questioned the legality of the aero, pictures mysteriously stopped.

[DB4 Tim]

Once someone questioned the legality of the aero, pictures mysteriously stopped.

I hope this is not true.

[Rick Kirchner]

He he he..... we could probably get Art spooled up here about rules language....

If all bodywork is an aerodynamic device given that is is licked by the airstream and produces either lift or drag then why not replace "aerodynamic device" with "bodywork"? Or, do you attempt to define an aerodynamic device as narrowly as possible, by defining a cambered surface of airfoil cross-section?

To misquote a famous resident of 1600: "it depends what your definition of "is" is"....

[Paul LeCain]

This part of the FA rules is very old. Over 25 years, I think.

The winglet or upkick or 'bodywork' on the pictures in this thread sure looked like it was an aero device to me. If it isn't, why put it there?

The problem with this rule is where it stops. Can I build a World of Outlaws wing into my engine cover and call it bodywork? Probably (??) not. It wouldn't even need to have an "airfoil cross-section" to produce lots of downforce (and drag). A flat plate would work.

On the other hand, its pretty hard to argue that the underwings are not aerodynamic devices. Yet they're allowed to be 130 cm wide.

As Carrol Smith pointed out, vented brake discs are aerodynamic devices, as are wheel fans, brake scoops, etc.

Shapes similar to this first showed up in 1996 when SCCA decided to allow Pro Atlantic RT-41s to run in club races. They did it at the time by saying these cars were allowed to run strictly in their Pro configuration (tunnels (no splitters, strakes, etc), tires (Yoko spec tires), wings (smaller rear, less setback), spec TRD FI, 9800 rev limit). You even had to carry around the Pro rule book for tech to look at. But the Pro cars did (optionally) have that winglet. As the rules for RT-41s and Swift 008s, 014s were relaxed, nothing was ever said about the winglet. Nor was the rule changed. That's where we are now.

[Rennie Clayton]

As Carrol Smith pointed out, vented brake discs are aerodynamic devices, as are wheel fans, brake scoops, etc.

Not as the GCR defines it:

Aerodynamic Device - An attachment to, or an integral part of, a car intended to generate atmospheric downforce by the action of air flowing through or around the attachment.

I, for one, think the Stohr is perfectly legal. This is not significantly different than an RT-5 with tunnel skirts and the footer plate just ahead of the rear tyres - the later Pro cars were just late to the party by about 10 or 15 years! Besides - the way the rules are written, one must argue intent - and with the big honking rear tyres mandated by FA, I should think that the real intent is drag reduction!

Cheers,
Rennie

[RussMcB]

I get nervous thinking about legality determined by intent. Too hard to know and confirm what someone was thinking. I guess if they offered a lot of evidence then a judging panel could be convinced ...

And what if the intent wasn't to create downforce, but, turns out, it does?

I know I wouldn't want to be on the panel to determine this one. Both sides of the argument can be convincing.

[Tom Valet]

I have a question about the bodywork on this car and the Formula Car spec for SCCA use.

Specifically, how does the upkick on the sidepods in front of the rear wheels fit under this part (9.1.1.A.1.g.2) of the FA rules?

"The maximum width of any aerodynamic device situated behind the front wheels, including the rear wing, shall not exceed 110cm (43.307 inches)."

It looks to me like that upkick is the same width as the sidepods, namely 51 inches. It is certainly an aerodynamic device.

Can it be argued that each of these "upkicks" is a separate "aerodynamic device?" If so, and if you measure the width of each of the upkicks separately, then neither of these devices is more than 43.307 inches wide.

[Joe Woodward]

I did not bring up rules but since it has been raised, the pictures seem to indicate that the car is flat bottom from the nose to where the tunnels start. I always have difficulty making sure that my sidepods are at least 1 cm higher than the tub of the car. Forgetting about upper aerodynamics, if this is truely flat to the tunnels how do you even apply the current Atlantic rules for sidepods and center section height? And then again I am probably wrong in my interpretation of the photos.

[Paul LeCain]

I don't know what the bottom of this car looks like, but, being based on a DB-4, the skirts can be 1 cm BELOW the tub, unlike your car.

[Paul LeCain]

Can it be argued that each of these "upkicks" is a separate "aerodynamic device?" If so, and if you measure the width of each of the upkicks separately, then neither of these devices is more than 43.307 inches wide.

Now, there's an idea. I'll make up 2 or 3 front/rear wings, each of which is legal on it's own.

The car will end up looking like a modified autocross car. Of course, its top speed will be about 80 MPH, but, boy, will it corner.