Wing Rule

[RobLav]

While running at Pocono, where minimal wings are the norm, I reached the conclusion that our FB rule - wings are a requirement - was nonsense.

Why does this rule exist?

The silly looking wings of FC cars (and my car) at Pocono were simply methods to get around this silly rule.

I'd like to write a letter to the CRB requesting removal of this rule.

Any comments?

[John LaRue]

Assuming that there is not a spec minimum wing which there is not in FC/FB, your comments make sense to me. A great deal of time and expense is being put out to decorate the cars with "wings" in those situations. If you write a letter include FC.

[R. Pare]

Why does this rule exist?

Easy and obvious answer: The class is for winged formula cars.

Wings are a requirement because this is a winged car class. Therefore, part of the challenge is to come up with the equipment necessary for the wide variety of track conditions you will encounter.

Minimal wings also does not necessarily mean that no wings are needed to balance the car.

[Paul LeCain]

For whatever reason, history probably, Atlantics don't require wings. You can make them look like a big FF. In fact, an FF, with big wheels, is a legal FA. And now, with the new engine rules, so is an FC.

That said, we've never found a track, including Pocono, where no wings was faster than small wings.

[Stan Clayton]

Well said, Paul.

[RobLav]

Easy and obvious answer: The class is for winged formula cars.

Richard - If the wing requirement rule exists in FC and FB and NOT in FA, then FA must not be a winged car class. The rules are inconsistent. And I'd have to say your position

Wings are a requirement because this is a winged car class.

is kindof like a self-licking ice cream cone (in DOD speak). (I'll give a call if you want to discuss... and maybe talk about your diff too.)

My view is that the challenge is not just to choose which wing to use, but to also be able to have the choice to not run wings at all. This should really be a competitor's choice rather than be dictated by the rules.


Paul - thanks for the comment, but you live in a class that does not require wings. We should have that same choice. At Pocono, as a developmental experiment with the new FB, I ran wings that had essentially no downforce. I learned from that, and next time, I'll run a different package. Since we are the people running these cars and paying for SCCA track time, then that wing choice should be ours.

[Paul LeCain]

Paul - thanks for the comment, but you live in a class that does not require wings. We should have that same choice. At Pocono, as a developmental experiment with the new FB, I ran wings that had essentially no downforce. I learned from that, and next time, I'll run a different package. Since we are the people running these cars and paying for SCCA track time, then that wing choice should be ours.

If the rules aren't saying that there must be wings of a minimum size, then it makes no sense to say simply that there must be wings. At Pocono, I saw FCs with two rear endplates about an inch apart. As you did, I saw lots of other variants on FC and FB cars.

There was a fair variation in FA, too, initially. It sort of coalesced around smallish front wings with little flaps, and rear wings with usually a main plane with a single element higher up.

I'd say that if the rules aren't going to specify wings of a certain size, then they shouldn't say you have to run a 'wing'. Making wing-like objects to attach to the car to meet the letter of the rule isn't very productive.

[RobLav]

Making wing-like objects to attach to the car to meet the letter of the rule isn't very productive.

Paul - that is my primary point. Thanks.

[10rmotor]

snip

Since we are the people running these cars and paying for SCCA track time, then that wing choice should be ours.

You could justify anything with this argument.

Since I'm paying for SCCA track time, I should be able to run nitrous, etc.

[RobLav]

10R - your comment made me laugh. But I am looking to remove a requirement, not add an allowance.

[R. Pare]

"remove a requirement, not add an allowance" ??????

By making them optional, then you are most certainly adding an allowance of running without wings!

FA came into being when cars were being allowed wings, and that allowance stayed even after the allowance for full ground effects. It was never thought of as a mandatory winged class by anyone.

FC was made a mandatory winged class from the outset, and has remained as such - that is the formula to which you have to adhere.

If FB wants, as a new class, to be allowed to run sans wings, then by all means go for it.

[Stan Clayton]

I agree with everything you list in this latest post, Richard, but how do you respond to Paul's point about the lack of a minimum size effectively rendering the rule ineffectual?

PS - I've added a photo of our latest "Runoffs Spec" FC front wing...

[nulrich]

There is no track in the USA that I'm aware of where no wings would be faster than an efficient wing package (Bonneville isn't a track ).

Pocono is certainly a low downforce track, but an efficient wing would still be faster than no wing in FC.

Road America is definitely a track that rewards aerodynamic efficiency, but a package like we ran at Watkins Glen (with a single element upper rear wing) will be the hot setup. Much lower drag but still reasonable downforce.

Nathan
Radon Sport LLC

[R. Pare]

Stan:

Why should one care whether or not the rule is "ineffectual" or not? The rule is the rule, and if certain circumstances lead the innovative to minimise the size of the required wing to something along the line of what you show, why should anyone care?

While I personally would not consider what you show to be a "wing", I also realise that the Glossary is so vague in its definition that you could declare a whole car as being a wing.

I wonder how well that would go over in a protest against a car that had no "wings"!

[RussMcB]

I think Rob's point is, why got to all the extra effort, hassle & expense to meet the rules when he could just remove them for free and 10 minutes work? What possible bad thing might result if the rules allowed that?

[Stan Clayton]

Why should one care whether or not the rule is "ineffectual" or not?

One should care because failing to address inadequacies in the rules all too often leads to unintended performance and rules creep. The DB1 in FF is a good case in point...David Bruns exploited inadequately written FF suspension rules to radically rewrite the performance envelope of the class, and sparked a technology war that went on for nearly 2 decades and dramatically raised the price of the class (which arguably contributed to its decline).

Ineffectual engine rules in Spec Maita have driven the price of success in that class so high that it is seeing losses in participation as a direct result of those rules.

An ineffectual rule prohibiting "wheel covers" in FF had led to the totally unintended consequence of those now being considered perfectly legal because no one can agree on what constitutes a wheel cover or a wheel fan.

The unintended consequence of an ineffectual wing rule in FC becoming widely known might be that a clever designer goes back to his CFD studies to come up with 3 or 4 optimised profiles to market to the class, one for low speed-high downforce, another for high-speed, etc. Get one front-runner to see some success with them and the cost of the class goes up another notch. Not that one couldn't already do that, granted, but I'm sure you get my point.

So yes, I thinks it's worthwhile addressing know ineffectual rules. I'm not taking a position on what that rule should be...just that it warrants addressing.

[R. Pare]

Stan:

The Mazda example is the only one that you quote that has merit - apparently the rules writers had no clue that you could actually build a better motor by selective parts processing (If that is what you are reffering to) - something that everyone else has known since maybe the '50's.

Bruns exploited nothing in the suspension rules that was written "inadequately". Not a clue as to where you came up with that one.

"Wheel covers" in FF were a known item way back in the '70's (and banned for obvious safety reasons), and in fact have been very well defined in the Glossary just about forever. It was only when someone decided to expolit the areo advantages of a flush faced wheel that certain people got their panties all in a knot about what constituted a "device" (the only other word in the rule that could possibly apply to an integral flush face) and the imagined cost escallation it posed.

The "ineffectual" wing rule in FC has been known and exploited ever since the inception of the class (and way before then in other formulas), and no one ever complained to the best of my knowledge until now. In the Pro series, way back at its inception on up until it went spec, you saw all sorts of one-off wings for certain tracks - way before CFD ever became popular at this level. In fact, there are a lot of shops all around the country that have offered all sorts of wing packages for many, many years, with no complaints.

Claiming that a rule is "ineffectual" is just a cheap way for the new people participating to justify "now that we understand what can be done, we don't like it." It's been known in FC since the very beginning that you could go to token wings if you wished.

That is not to say that there may not be some merit to changing the rule to help keep costs down, if indeed that is even possible.

The question then becomes, with costs in mind : Would it be better to just allow no wings, or to dictate a minimum envelope?

For those whom are serious, either approach won't make a bit of difference in how much they spend. For those whom are on tight budgets, the no wings allowance would probably be the best approach.

[Stan Clayton]

Okay, so you have issues with the details of my examples but agree with my conclusion. I'll take that as a yes.

[R. Pare]

We do agree that if enough people gripe, the rule can be changed.

Whether or not it will really fix anything is a whole 'nother matter. Personally, I don't think that it will make much difference at all - you've already shown how easy it can be to put a "wing" on the front of a car that fits the current Glossary definition. For the rear of the car, it could be a piece of old, broken a-arm airfoil mounted to the top of the engine cover with crazy glue.

Gee - that must cost all of $10!

But to call it "ineffectual" is a bit much when the complainers don't know what the rules makers had in mind for the "effect" of the rule!

[RobLav]

I wrote a long thread in reply but lost it. No more arguments.

At Pocono Saturday afternoon, I cut up a perfectly good front wing flap with a saber saw to mount under the nose for Sunday's race. My objective was to minimize drag. So I felt the rule should have allowed the competitor the choice to not run wings.

I don't read rules looking for someone else's intended "effect". The wing rule is inconsistent between FA, FB, and FC. In FB, I'm asking for the FA rule. That's it. I run my car in FB, and I would like that choice.

[Stan Clayton]

Whether or not it will really fix anything is a whole 'nother matter. Personally, I don't think that it will make much difference at all - you've already shown how easy it can be to put a "wing" on the front of a car that fits the current Glossary definition.
...
But to call it "ineffectual" is a bit much when the complainers don't know what the rules makers had in mind for the "effect" of the rule!

I agree with the first part of this, Richard. The present rule is no big deal because competitors have a great deal of freedom as it is. My motivation was to "clean it up".

OTOH, the present rule is "ineffectual" in the same sense as "ground effects are prohibited"...

[RussMcB]

Rob, if you (or anyone) formally asks for it, I'll send a letter of support. I may never be affected by it (maybe at Daytona), but see no reason for a requirement to have wings (or something cobbled up). I can't see any down side or negative ramifications to a rule change.

[RobLav]

Thanks Russ... You and I seem to be the only FB car owners in this entire thread.

This is the last time I will ever socialize a rule issue in an open forum. Between this thread and the PM's I received, not a single one of them FB owners (except Russ), it has been quite negative. If there was a lot of negative comments from FB owners concerning my idea, then I would acquiese. We're the ones that own the cars and the entries.

Fini

[formulasuper]

Sure glad we don't have any of these silly rules in FS.

[glenn cooper]

but have seen it on TV. Not real sure if there is any heavy braking involved, but believe there is. The reason I point this out goes back to my experience as an FM newb @ Daytona many moons ago. I trimed the wings out to 'nuthin, even going so far as to remove the gurney's, and 2 things happened: I picked up RPM through the tri-oval, AND had reduced the effectiveness of the brakes, esp. the fronts (locked up just by lookin' @ 'em wrong!), having the effect of increasing my lap time.
I learned something that weekend...

This thing sort of sounds like a non-issue to me.

Rob - Your braking experiences w/ the micro flapy-deal?

GC

[R. Pare]

I agree with the first part of this, Richard. The present rule is no big deal because competitors have a great deal of freedom as it is. My motivation was to "clean it up".

No issue there. I just find the reasoning a bit bizarre when it got extended to FC, and the somehow to FA.

OTOH, the present rule is "ineffectual" in the same sense as "ground effects are prohibited"...

And how many years have I written about the stupidity of that rule? 20 or so? And did you fix it while you knew about it and were on the Comp Board? Double

The wing rule is inconsistent between FA, FB, and FC. In FB, I'm asking for the FA rule.

FA has never had anything to do with FC, and visa-versa. Should the GT4 rules have anything to do with the GT1 rules?

Guys, I'm not against the changing of the rule for FB (it's your class, after all - I have nothing to do with it other than making some parts) - it after all is a new class and should make its own history. What I'm against is the illogical way it the arguement gets presented and somehow tied to other class rules.

[Stan Clayton]

Richard, you've complained for 20 years about one totally ineffectual rule in FC, but think we're wasting our time trying to fix an equally ineffectual rule in the same class? How's that again?

As I have written in these pages many times, I deliberately left that rule in place as a reminder to myself and future CRBs to strive NOT to write rules violating the laws of physics...

[R. Pare]

Richard, you've complained for 20 years about one totally ineffectual rule in FC, but think we're wasting our time trying to fix an equally ineffectual rule in the same class? How's that again?

Once again, slowly so that you might just be able to grasp this oh-so-terribly-complex a thought :

Since ___ when ___ is ___ the ___ FC ___ rule ___ "ineffectual" ???

Does ___ it ___ not ___ have ___ the ___ intended ___ effect ___ of ___ requiring ___ wings ___ at ___ all ___ times ?????

Is ___ it ___ not ___ a ___ specifically ___ written ___part ___ of ___ the ___ intent ___ of ___ the ___ formula ___ that ___ wings ___ are ___ mandatory ????





Once again:

If the class members want to change the rule, that's fine by me. No issue.

But to call a rule that was written for a specific purpose, and that actually accomplishes that purpose perfectly, "ineffectual", is beyond all logic.

As I have written in these pages many times, I deliberately left that rule in place as a reminder to myself and future CRBs to strive NOT to write rules violating the laws of physics...

Yea, right.

If that were truely the case, then you weren't doing the job for which you were appointed!

[Stan Clayton]

No need to resort to personal insults Richard. I agree with others here that the wing rule is ineffective, and illustrated why with humor in post #12. If you disagree, just say so.