FB cars should be allowed differentials

[Brandon Dixon]

I just submitted this rule change/clarification to the CRB:

Since FB is a restricted class and I do not see any specific allowance in the FB rules for a differential, I would argue that by the letter of the rules only a "spool" type rear drive would be technically allowed.

If the CRB wishes to contain costs in the FB class, then FB could be limited to NON-LSD type differentials. I believe, however, that the spirit of the class as created by SCCA is a fairly open set of rules and that differentials should be unrestricted (other than to prohibit electronic controls as in other classes).

Proposed Rule:
Any open, limited-slip, or locking differential may be used. Electronic controls of the differential are prohibited.

Any thoughts? Does anyone want to limit FB to "open" diffs or spools?

[formulasuper]

I just submitted this rule change/clarification to the CRB:

Since FB is a restricted class and I do not see any specific allowance in the FB rules for a differential, I would argue that by the letter of the rules only a "spool" type rear drive would be technically allowed.

If the CRB wishes to contain costs in the FB class, then FB could be limited to NON-LSD type differentials. I believe, however, that the spirit of the class as created by SCCA is a fairly open set of rules and that differentials should be unrestricted (other than to prohibit electronic controls as in other classes).

Proposed Rule:
Any open, limited-slip, or locking differential may be used. Electronic controls of the differential are prohibited.

Any thoughts? Does anyone want to limit FB to "open" diffs or spools?

and with "spools" as an option.

[Wren]

I hope you have your trophy from the runoffs boxed up to send back to them. You obviously won with an illegal car.

[jerry freeman]

Does that mean I'm the national champion because I had the only legal car to complete a national?

The rule sounds good to me as long as I can still have the spool til I get some more money. Congrats on the runoffs win Brandon! I know that is a fast hot rod.

Jerry

[starkejt]

I'm sure Brandon didn't mean to exclude spools. If you add spools to his wording, it looks good to me.

[Brandon Dixon]

My thought is that "spools" are currently legal since we are required to drive the rear wheels. My proposed rule just says that differentials are permitted, but not required. If people would rather have an explicit statement saying that spools are permitted then fine by me.

[SOseth]

I just submitted this rule change/clarification to the CRB:

Since FB is a restricted class and I do not see any specific allowance in the FB rules for a differential, I would argue that by the letter of the rules only a "spool" type rear drive would be technically allowed.

If the CRB wishes to contain costs in the FB class, then FB could be limited to NON-LSD type differentials. I believe, however, that the spirit of the class as created by SCCA is a fairly open set of rules and that differentials should be unrestricted (other than to prohibit electronic controls as in other classes).

Proposed Rule:
Any open, limited-slip, or locking differential may be used. Electronic controls of the differential are prohibited.

Any thoughts? Does anyone want to limit FB to "open" diffs or spools?

Brandon;

After reading the FB rules I too would question whether this is a restricted class or not. My question to you would be do you really want to open the class even more?

SteveO

[RussMcB]

Is this proposal just to make sure the rules match what (almost) everyone in the class is already doing?

[Brandon Dixon]

Brandon;

After reading the FB rules I too would question whether this is a restricted class or not. My question to you would be do you really want to open the class even more?

SteveO

I don't think that more than a couple of cars are running spools right now, and, in fact, I will guess that many/most have some sort of LSD/Torsen type diff. I'm fine with making it a requirement to use an open diff, since that is what is in my car, but I don't think that the original intent was to force people down that path.

I'm only trying to get into the rule book what *I think* that everyone expects the rule to say. I certainly could be wrong.

[R. Pare]

Brandon;

After reading the FB rules I too would question whether this is a restricted class or not. My question to you would be do you really want to open the class even more?

SteveO

I'd be willing to bet that this is nothing more than a simple oversight on the part of the rules authors, and that they envisioned allowing almost anything for differentials except for electronically controlled diffs.

[RobLav]

IMHO, Richard has it correct.

[Mike B]

I'd be willing to bet that this is nothing more than a simple oversight on the part of the rules authors, and that they envisioned allowing almost anything for differentials except for electronically controlled diffs.

I can't seem to find my final draft of the rules from '06, but an earlier version stated that diffs were unrestricted but electronically controlled diffs were prohibited. Not sure when/why that fell out.

[R. Pare]

If that is the case, and you can find the paperwork, it can be fixed thru the Errors and Omissions process and not have to go out as a rules change proposal.

[RobLav]

What Mike says is how I remember it too.

[Brandon Dixon]

I searched the rules proposal threads here on Apex and did not find any draft rules for differentials. I could have missed it though.

[R. Pare]

If you have an earlier version, and everyone else backs up your recollection, submit it for errors and omissions and see if it takes.

Don't see why it shouldn't.

[Mike B]

I searched the rules proposal threads here on Apex and did not find any draft rules for differentials. I could have missed it though.

You calling me a liar, Dixon?!

If you have an earlier version, and everyone else backs up your recollection, submit it for errors and omissions and see if it takes.

Don't see why it shouldn't.

The version I have is a very early, very rough draft and may have never been made public. The error and/or omission is probably on my part.

I don't see anyone having heartburn over Brandon's proposal so my guess is it could be a simple "clarification" that shouldn't have any impact at all on current competitors.

[Northwind]

Differentials (and Spools) as in Brandon's proposal get my vote.

[Brandon Dixon]

You calling me a liar, Dixon?!








The version I have is a very early, very rough draft and may have never been made public. The error and/or omission is probably on my part.

I don't see anyone having heartburn over Brandon's proposal so my guess is it could be a simple "clarification" that shouldn't have any impact at all on current competitors.

Definitely not calling you a liar O Grand PooBah of the F1000 Series. I'm just saying that you might check in one of those earlier drafts...

This seems like a simple omission as well to me, but I don't want to presume to speak for everyone.

[R. Pare]

Just spent (too much) time looking through all the old rules threads and didn't find any versions that mentioned anything about diffs, so it looks like it should be submitted as a proposal.

[Mike B]

Just spent (too much) time looking through all the old rules threads and didn't find any versions that mentioned anything about diffs, so it looks like it should be submitted as a proposal.

I think Brandon has you covered:

I just submitted this rule change/clarification to the CRB:

[Northwind]

Brandon,

Thank you for getting this rule clarrification taken care of. It looks like we are driving legal cars now.

[RobLav]

Brandon has been a sense of sanity so far.