Active aero

[nulrich]

Anyone notice this in the latest Fastrack?

#856 (CRB) Forbid active aero devices
Add a new item to Appendix F, Active Aerodynamic Devices: No active aerodynamic devices are permitted. These include, but are not limited to, those that allow any degree of freedom in relation to the entirely sprung part of the car (chassis/monocoque), movable or hinged skirts, or that can be adjusted from within the cockpit. (Although some classes or categories already forbid active aerodynamic devices (explicitly or implicitly), there are others that are not currently covered. A blanket prohibition is simpler to create than it is to correct every class or category specification. If approved, separate class or category rules will be removed.)

I wonder what prompted this? If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

As a designer, I'm definitely opposed to any further limitations on the idea of a true "formula" class, and I'll submit a comment opposing a blanket rule like this at some point (for what it's worth). We experimented with some movable aero devices last year before they were banned by the F2000 pro series. And I have a few new ideas I'd like to explore at some point . Fun to try, and a lot cheaper than a set of shocks!

If they are going to put in such a rule, it should probably be written more clearly, as it stands it will be very difficult to enforce or interpret.

Just my opinion.

Nathan

[Peter Horvath]

The promulgation of a rule that reduces the cost of racing will generally be approved.
The promulgation of a rule that makes racing safer (HANS device) will be vociferously debated and probably approved.
The promulgation of a rule that makes racing faster for everyone (a new tire, fuel, etc.) might be approved.
A rule that permits only those with wind tunnels to go faster...I dunno

[Jnovak]

as much as I like the idea of fewer rules. We REALLY do not need active aerodynamics in club racing.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[nulrich]

None of the ideas I'd like to try would be developed in a wind tunnel. Very simple things.

Although it is titled "Active Aero" it actually covers any movable aerodynamic device or driver controlled aerodynamic device. I don't know why I can spend $15k on a set of dampers but I can't spend $200 hooking a cable up to my front wing flap adjuster so I can tune my aero balance without returning to the pits.

Should we ban adjustable anti-roll bars and brake balance adjusters? Why is this any different?

I'm not suggesting it be allowed in any class where it's currently banned, but leave the formula classes open to innovation, there are always spec classes for those that prefer.

Nathan

[R. Pare]

It's already been banned if FC since the beginning. Read the Bodywork section in the FF rules. This new rule doesn't change FC at all.

[nulrich]

Sure it does...read it again. The last paragraph of D.8.c clearly only applies to FF (unless you believe wings are also banned in FC). Movable aero devices are currently legal in FC.

Not just my interpretation by the way, but the opinion of Mike Eakin and several national stewards. Last year I built some barge boards that mounted on aluminum struts that flexed slightly to allow them to move up and down with the suspension. We ran them at the Watkins Glen pro series race. The F2000 series decided to invoke Rule 20 and ban them after that race (which is their prerogative, of course).

You're not alone in assuming movable aero devices are illegal in FC, by the way. Several other people who've been around SCCA formula car racing for a while also assumed that. Apparently there used to be such a rule but it was left out during a revision.

Which just points out one of the problems with the new proposed rule change. How do you define "movable?" My barge board mounts had no pivots, just a flexible section near the mounting point. They were "firmly attached with no provisions for adjustment to vary downforce" so are probably legal even in FF (except they clearly contradict the philosophy of the class). Similarly, all wings flex at speed. If I design a wing that flexes even more at speed to reduce drag, is that illegal? What about an F-duct?

Leave the rules the way they are, it will make life simpler for everyone and give us crazy designers one more thing to explore...which doesn't hurt anyone!

Nathan

[R. Pare]

Flex is one thing, and has never been addressed specifically in FF or FC - not sure how you would adequately define it since everything flexes under load.

"Cockpit adjustable" has been banned for 25+ years, and is easily understood by everyone who has been active for that time period. Just because a steward doesn't understand the rules doesn't make something legal or illegal.

Remember, what is written in the FF rules in the chassis and bodywork paragraphs take precedent UNLESS something else is specifically written in the FC rules. I tried to get the CRB to clean up the FC rules at the same time as the FF rules were done, but I guess that they thought doing one at a time was enough.

Also, if your bargeboards had a gap between them and the sides of the bodywork, - ie - you could look down between them and see the ground - they would most likely be ruled illegal in a protest as per the "no forward facing gaps" rule and the undersides 1" rule.

[nulrich]

I completely agree that the FC rules should be revised to clarify certain areas, and my understanding is that is under consideration.

I agree that flex is almost impossible to regulate, which is why I don't think they should try (via the proposed new blanket rule).

I haven't been active in FC for 25 years, so I have to take the current regulations at face value. The reason to publish regulations is to have everything spelled out clearly in the text. There is no provision in the GCR for "that's how it's always been" (or at least not anywhere I can find). If there is a "shadow" set of regulations that takes precedence over the GCR, that's a problem.

I think the stewards understand the regulations quite well, at least in my experience. When there has been a question in the pro series Mike Eakin goes off and reads the current regulations (doesn't assume) and talks to other stewards. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but my understanding is that he found the barge boards legal per the current GCR, which is why they were banned in the pro series via Rule 20.

Can you quote any part of the GCR that makes cockpit adjustable aero devices illegal? I can't find anything that applies to FC.

My barge boards fit within the defined front wing volume and are not bodywork. If your interpretation is correct, then front wings with slotted flaps would also be illegal because they are "forward facing gaps." Similarly, in FC the 1" deviation only applies aft of the rear edge of the front tire, and they were forward of that.

There is no question they were legal per the current GCR. I can't speak for past versions.

Nathan

[R. Pare]

Not having actually seen your barge boards, I have to visualize them based on your description and the "traditional" styles out there.

If your boards were an actual component of the front wing system - ie - entirely attached to either the main plane and/or the flap, I would agree that they are part of the wing and therefore legal. However, your description was that they were mounted to the chassis/bodywork - not the wing - and (reading between the lines) pretty much the same as we have all seen where they are legal - ie - they form a gap between the sides of the cockpit bodywork and possibly the front of the sidepod.

In that case - 2 rules in the FF sections come into play :

1 - D.8.c second paragraph - There shall be no forward facing openings except for those necessary for cooling........ (paraphrased a bit).

A bargeboard (assuming that it is the usual vertical panel that stands off from the side of the cockpit some distance), most definitely forms a forward facing opening, and unless it is used directly for cooling something, would run afoul of this rule.

You could conceivably get around this caveat by somehow incorporating a token (but functional) radiator for the engine.

2 - D.8.d "For the full width of the bodywork......"

Granted, #2 is somewhat harder to follow its possible meanings, but the design nevertheless is to prevent items such as bargeboards when it talks about "primarily vertical bodywork that extends...", via the understanding that that a bargeboard that stands off away from the sides of the bodywork does not by definition "extend" from the bodywork - for something to "extend" it (and not its mounts) has to start AT the bodywork.

Further, assuming that it (or part of it) is within the defined area, the fact that it has an infinitely tall gap between it and the cockpit sides makes it run afoul of the 1' measurement rule.

There is no "defined front wing volume" so that argument has no merit. They are also "bodywork" as per the Glossary definition (unless I've missed a change in the last few months).

In reference to the Stewards, I have found that most (particularly those with solely sedan car backgrounds) have very little understanding of the formula car rules! In fact, I've had some (at the runoffs no less) question the legality of 2 competitors cars - built the same year, but with different bodywork - thinking that FF was a "spec" class!

Cockpit adjustment: FF bodywork rules D.8.c third paragraph -" Cockpit adjustment is not permitted". At first glance it may seem to apply only to the allowance for a spoiler, but in fact it also applies to wings (the "Any part of the car that has an influence on the aerodynamics of the car...." sentence). It could be written better (and needs to be!), I'll agree, but that's the definition that has been used since at least 1986.

Part of the re-write of FC should have that sentence incorporated in the wings allowance area. Personally, I'd like to have the FC suspension, brake, clutch, starter, etc rules refer to the FF rules so as to make sure that rules drift over time is kept to a minimum. That is the reason why FC was written to refer to the FF chassis and bodywork rules - the cars were to be essentially the same car, but with different aero and engine allowances.

Frankly, I'd like to sit down again and tweak the FF rules again so as to address some of these areas that weren't fully clarified, but I'm not sure that the CRB will want to go thru that again at this time.

[nulrich]

If, as you assert, there is no front wing volume, then what do B, E, and K define in Table 4 of the FC regulations?

If wings are bodywork, then every front wing, and most rear wings, currently running in the F2000 pro series runs afoul of the D.8.c "no forward facing openings except for cooling" regulation. They have openings between the wing elements which definitely contradict that rule. A barge board is no different, so either all those wings are illegal, or barge boards are legal.

The barge boards I built were not with the defined area between the rear of the front tires and the front of the rear tires (for FC), so the 1" deviation rule does not apply.

You have to include the entire third paragraph of D.8.c:

For Formula Ford, a wing shall be defined as any shape that has a leading edge and a trailing edge and creates downforce. Wings and other airfoil devices (“dive planes”, etc.), whose primary purpose are to create aerodynamic downforce, are prohibited. Any part of the car which that has an influence on the aerodynamic stability of the vehicle shall be firmly attached with no provisions for adjustment to vary downforce. A single rear spoiler, that may be capable of adjustment, is permitted. Cockpit adjustment is not permitted. This spoiler shall be no wider than the surface to which it is attached, and there shall be no gap between the spoiler and the body surface to which it is attached.

This entire paragraph clearly only applies to Formula Ford. FC cars violate every sentence of this paragraph. Starting at the second sentence: (a) they have wings; (b) they have adjustable wings; (c) they don't have rear spoilers, they have rear wings; (d) [cockpit adjustment]; (e) wings are wider than the bodywork, and there's a gap between the wings and the bodywork.

Are you seriously going to make the argument that a paragraph that begins "For Formula Ford" and goes on to describe a series of things that are clearly contradictory to the FC rules, should have one sentence extracted in isolation and applied to FC? That doesn't pass the smell test.

I haven't had any exposure to stewards at the Club Racing level in about 23 years, but I find Mike Eakin (who I assume is a licensed steward) to be very logical and systematic in his application of the rules in the pro series.

Nathan

[nulrich]

Personally, I'd like to have the FC suspension, brake, clutch, starter, etc rules refer to the FF rules so as to make sure that rules drift over time is kept to a minimum. That is the reason why FC was written to refer to the FF chassis and bodywork rules - the cars were to be essentially the same car, but with different aero and engine allowances.

Frankly, I'd like to sit down again and tweak the FF rules again so as to address some of these areas that weren't fully clarified, but I'm not sure that the CRB will want to go thru that again at this time.

Let's not change the FF and FC rules, at least for a little while! I've just finished designing and am in the process of building cars specifically to those rules, and I'm not crazy about any changes that might make them illegal.

I'm not in favor of adopting FF suspension rules for FC, since they prohibit carbon fiber and there are a couple of other details where I prefer the FC rules. I'd favor a clarification of the FC rules (with no change in intent) instead.

Nathan

[R. Pare]

If, as you assert, there is no front wing volume, then what do B, E, and K define in Table 4 of the FC regulations?

Item "B" only describes front maximum overhang length ahead of the front wheel axis - it has zero to do with wing "volume". Note that only wing width, height and maximum forward placement are described - no limit is put on how far back the wing can extend. In reality, your wing assembly could extent backwards past the front axle. Again : there is no 'wing volume' description anywhere in the GCR.

If wings are bodywork, then every front wing, and most rear wings, currently running in the F2000 pro series runs afoul of the D.8.c "no forward facing openings except for cooling" regulation. They have openings between the wing elements which definitely contradict that rule. A barge board is no different, so either all those wings are illegal, or barge boards are legal.

Not even close to true since wings are allowed (in fact mandated ) , and since wings assemblies CAN have gaps, gaps in wing assemblies are therefore allowed. The rule pertains to everything BUT wings. Yes, it is a bit of a cluster**** since some idiot(s) a few years ago got the Glossary to be the official definition of things AND wrote the 'bodywork' definition the way they did ( in reality, the definition also includes suspension, tires and wheels!) and didn't realize that they were totally screwing things up. That is one area that really needs work, and I've brought it up multiple times with CRB members, but nothing has been done about it yet.

In fact - and I had forgotten about it until right now - the FF Bodywork section starts off with a definition of bodywork (and is an overide of the Glossary definition) that describes bodywork as all panels external to the frame. That description would indeed include bargeboards unless they are part and parcel of the front wing assembly.

Again: IF the bargeboard was attached entirely to the front wing, then it can legitimately be part of the front wing assembly. If instead it is attached entirely to the sides of the car, it then IS NOT part of the wing assembly, and therefore becomes part of the bodywork by either definition.

The barge boards I built were not with the defined area between the rear of the front tires and the front of the rear tires (for FC), so the 1" deviation rule does not apply.

If true, then you are correct that the 1" rule does not apply. However, they are still subject to the forward facing gaps rule.

Strange how you would think that the FF defined area is overridden by the FC defined area description, yet somehow the other things are not!

You have to include the entire third paragraph of D.8.c:

This entire paragraph clearly only applies to Formula Ford. FC cars violate every sentence of this paragraph. Starting at the second sentence: (a) they have wings; (b) they have adjustable wings; (c) they don't have rear spoilers, they have rear wings; (d) [cockpit adjustment]; (e) wings are wider than the bodywork, and there's a gap between the wings and the bodywork.

No, the paragraph applies equally to both FF and FC (as mandated by the sentences both at the start of D.7.(FF) and the start of the FC rules section) UNLESS there is something in the FC rules that override it. FC rules specify that wings are mandatory, and all the usual things that wings do and have are made legal by that mandate.

Are you seriously going to make the argument that a paragraph that begins "For Formula Ford" and goes on to describe a series of things that are clearly contradictory to the FC rules, should have one sentence extracted in isolation and applied to FC? That doesn't pass the smell test.

That sentence is simply a definition of what a wing is for the purposes of FF only. The sentence in no way makes a claim that the entire following paragraph pertains only to FF. The paragraph could be broken up better for clarity, but, again, with the exception of the wings definition sentence, this is essentially the same paragraph that has ruled for 25 years or more. Wishful thinking doesn't change that fact.

Furthermore, FC has a mandate for wings ( B.2. first sentence) "Airfoils are a requirement for this class." Such rules in FC override whatever is written in FF. If you haven't digested this by now, you probably should before you go on too many goose chases!

Anyway, that's enough on this - I've got to get some sleep and get product out the door.

Good luck with your endeavors, but be careful in how you apply wishful thinking to the rules.

[nulrich]

Respectfully, Richard, you seem to be referring to a "shadow" GCR that exists in your head (and perhaps a few others who've been around these classes for a long time).

I can only go by the text as written in the 2010 GCR. Your interpretation is very creative, and I'm sure has historical precedence, but bears no relationship to a reasonable interpretation of the current rules. In my opinion, of course.

For example, could you point out where in the FC rules there is any mention of front or rear wings? Only "airfoils" are mentioned with no definition of how many or where they have to be located. I also don't see any requirement that a front wing assembly has to consist of parts that are only attached to each other and can't be attached to the frame in multiple places. You say I could extend my front wing back behind the front wheels (which is true, although it would have to narrow at that point to 950 mm) but I couldn't add additional supports? I don't see that anywhere in the rules.

All this proves is that the FC rules really need work.

My FEA run is finished, gotta get back to work myself.

Nathan

[iamuwere]

Again, this is a place where I continue to see problems in the GCR/FCR. Not just in FF or FC, but in all of the rules. There are many "rules" which are told to exist because of prior interpretation or precident, BUT NEVER become part of the rule book. Unless you were at that race or know that person and the outcomes of an inspection or protest, you would have no idea that such a "rule" exists.

I can think of a time where I wanted to make a change, the rule book clearly didn't say anything about its legality. Called SCCA technical and they didn't see a problem, but many older competitors later thought is foul (never actually used or install, but just the idea floated) because of a protest someone had files about 20 years earlier.

Rules should be printed and clear.

I agree with Nathan in the quoted block prior. It says "For formula ford". If I were in FF or FC, I would assume that whole paragraph specifically relates to FF only and not FC.

The rules should be able to fully stand on their own for someone who joined the SCCA this year and is in a region that completely devoid of any other formula car or car guru and still be legal. May not be competitive, but still legal by what the book says.

Too many ghost rules versus reality of what is written.

I even thought our FE rules were pretty clear until recently...

jim

[nulrich]

Thanks, Jim, I totally agree. In designing a new car for FC, I've spent a lot of time going over the rules with a fine-toothed comb. There are many inconsistencies and contradictions. Fortunately, Dave Gomberg has been very helpful in interpreting many of these for me, but he also had to explain to me that his opinion is just that, even as an official of the SCCA.

I should also say that rewriting the rules is a thankless task, and anyone that takes it on will spend many hours trying to interpret the byzantine history of the current rules while getting yelled at (literally or via email and forums) by everyone. I can understand why no one wants to do it!

To beat a dead horse, I don't see how anyone can look at the following paragraph and conclude it applies to FC:

For Formula Ford, a wing shall be defined as any shape that has a leading edge and a trailing edge and creates downforce. Wings and other airfoil devices (“dive planes”, etc.), whose primary purpose are to create aerodynamic downforce, are prohibited. Any part of the car which that has an influence on the aerodynamic stability of the vehicle shall be firmly attached with no provisions for adjustment to vary downforce. A single rear spoiler, that may be capable of adjustment, is permitted. Cockpit adjustment is not permitted. This spoiler shall be no wider than the surface to which it is attached, and there shall be no gap between the spoiler and the body surface to which it is attached.

Even if you ignore the first phrase "For Formula Ford" it can't apply to FC. Look at the sentence that bans cockpit adjustment:

A single rear spoiler, that may be capable of adjustment, is permitted. Cockpit adjustment is not permitted.

The ONLY possible interpretation of that section, written in the English language, is that cockpit adjustment of a single rear spoiler is not permitted. Trying to extend that to wings in FC (which are banned previously in the paragraph) is tortuous to the extreme.

Nathan