New for 2012

[Northwind]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]

All changes are effective 2/1/12 unless otherwise noted.

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]

NOTE: This preliminary version of the Club Racing Technical Bulletin is provided at this time as a service to the
membership. These items may be corrected and will not be official until published on the Fastrack page of the
scca.com web site on or about January 20.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]

GCR

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]

None.

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]

Formula
FB

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]

1. #6258 (Club Racing Board) Bodywork rule omission
Add a new section, 9.1.1.H.3.i, as follows:

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]

“There shall be no forward facing gaps or openings in the bodywork with the exception of those necessary for engine cooling,

engine air inlet, shock, or brake cooling. All bodywork shall be firmly attached to the chassis.”
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[RussMcB]

What prompted that rule, and who does it adversely affect?

Just curious.

[Wren]

What prompted that rule, and who does it adversely affect?

Just curious.

I cannot imagine what prompted this rule. A large portion of the field will be affected.

My biggest problem is that the CRB passed this as a rule omission. They are claiming that somehow this was overlooked for 5 years and now we are adding it.

This is a rule change without member input. Period.

[Northwind]

The original FB rules had a loophole that didn't regulate ducted air like all the other SCCA classes.

I'm not sure if this change has effected anybody's car that I have seen. Their may be one manufacturer that pushes it a bit but that depends on how opening is interpreted.

[Northwind]

Wren,

This was brought up at the run offs formula/sportsracer meeting and you and Brandon were there. There was no discussion or opposition.

[Wren]

The original FB rules had a loophole that didn't regulate ducted air like all the other SCCA classes.

I'm not sure if this change has effected anybody's car that I have seen. Their may be one manufacturer that pushes it a bit but that depends on how opening is interpreted.

Not all open wheel classes have the ducted air regulation. That would also be a rule change.

I think this change affects most of the field. It is a rule specifically aimed at barge boards and other aero devices that have previously been usable in FB.

Wren,

This was brought up at the run offs formula/sportsracer meeting and you and Brandon were there. There was no discussion or opposition.

I remember you bringing it up. We also talked about it later. Talking about things at the runoffs meeting is not the same as publishing it in fastrack and seeking member input.

[Northwind]

Yes, Input should have been given from membership because the rule as written is not as clear as the intent should be.

[Jnovak]

This "clarification" will require another clarification IMO. What defines a forward facing gap?

In the Glossary of technical terms it is not listed. However in the many places in the GCR where the term "forward facing" is used, on page 252 of the 2011 GCR (FF cars registered before 1/1/86) there is this section:

[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Wings and other airfoil devices which have the principal effect [/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]of creating aerodynamic down-thrust are prohibited. Airfoil: [/FONT][FONT=Univers]Any device or part of a car (excepting normal and conventionally [/FONT][FONT=Univers]styled bodywork) which has a principal effect of [/FONT][FONT=Univers]creating aerodynamic downthrust. Within this definition may [/FONT][FONT=Univers]be included forward facing gaps or openings in the bodywork, [/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]This is not a definition but it does relate "forward facing gaps" to aerodynamic Df.[/FONT] [FONT=Univers]Some cars have barge boards or devices to direct air around the rear tires. These do have "gaps" between body part A and body part B but?? [/FONT][FONT=Univers]I contend barge boards are used to direct air to the radiator inlet ducts. I also contend [/FONT][FONT=Univers]that my deflectors in front of the rear tires are to direct air to the rear brakes, or they will be by next season. The stewards will be having fun with FB this year.[/FONT]

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[/FONT]

[Northwind]

Jay,

I held a national scrutineer license years ago and I don't know how I would interpret this rule as written for enforcement. You would think that some of the most experienced scrutineers would have to review these rule changes before they are mandated. There is going to be alot of arguing in the tech shed this year. Where's Joe Griffin when you need him.

[Northwind]

The way this rule is written there is potential for any car with an under nose wing to be illegal. The nose/wing brackets form a forward facing opening.

[Christopher Crowe]

[FONT=Univers]I contend barge boards are used to direct air to the radiator inlet ducts. I also contend [/FONT][FONT=Univers]that my deflectors in front of the rear tires are to direct air to the rear brakes, or they will be by next season. [/FONT]

And who's to say no to that? A scrutineer with a doctorate in aerodynamics?

I'm not sure this imprecise verbiage will change anything -- other than the words used to describe some chunk of fiber glass's aerodynamic function.

[TTMRacing]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]

All changes are effective 2/1/12 unless otherwise noted.

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]

NOTE: This preliminary version of the Club Racing Technical Bulletin is provided at this time as a service to the
membership. These items may be corrected and will not be official until published on the Fastrack page of the
scca.com web site on or about January 20.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]

GCR

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]

None.

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]

Formula
FB

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]

1. #6258 (Club Racing Board) Bodywork rule omission
Add a new section, 9.1.1.H.3.i, as follows:

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]

“There shall be no forward facing gaps or openings in the bodywork with the exception of those necessary for engine cooling,

engine air inlet, shock, or brake cooling. All bodywork shall be firmly attached to the chassis.”
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Well, I guess an F-duct is out of the question now, LOL. Seriously though, why can't the CRB just leave this class alone.

[Rick Kean]

Pipe a small % of coolant/oil flow to a forward facing gap's perimeter,
and it's a heat exchanger.

Your welcome,

Rick Kean

[Wren]

Well, I guess an F-duct is out of the question now, LOL. Seriously though, why can't the CRB just leave this class alone.

I really want to give this new CRB the benefit of the doubt. I think that some of the changes on the CRB are bound to be a good thing.

I suspect that they thought that they were just cleaning up the rules and correcting a mistake that had been made by the original rules writers. I wonder if they misunderstood Dan at the runoffs meeting and did this from there.

I plan to write a polite letter asking them to reconsider and we will see where we get from there.

[R. Pare]

This is hilarious that they are considering this an "omission" - this was thoroughly discussed on this forum way back when the rules were being written. As Rick Kean pointed out a couple of post earlier, all that has to be done to circumvent the rule is to make the opening a token heat exchanger, which was part of what was pointed out way back when.

Granted, it does have the effect to make it more difficult to incorporate things like barge boards, but it most certainly does not prevent them.

There still remains the question of what constitutes a "forward facing opening" (2 sided? 3 sided? 4 sided? How far off of vertical makes it non-forward facing? etc), never mind the fact that your bi-plane wings are now illegal (PS - this rule in FC also makes them illegal, as well as any flaps (unless and or until the definition of "bodywork" gets changed).

[JerryH]

Richard (as usual) has hit most of the nails on the head. Per the gcr our wings can be considered bodywork (same for FC) and as such the openings in our bi-wing/end plate configuration creates a forward facing opening in "bodywork". So does is the gap between a flap and it's wing.

I believe bargeboards/turning vanes were dealt with in FC at some point....but I'm not sure the final ruling on that.

It would seem that part of a defination of the "forward facing opening" would be four connecting sides. In that case bargeboards or anything else could be done....just makes mounting them more difficult.

Since the citations were required to add the little widgets to the outside rear corners of the floor to meet bodywork rules, it appears the floor is not bodywork (even though it was ruled to be bodywork in FA). Therefore, holes in the floor are legal.....but what about the diffuser......is it bodywork.

Having said all that, and realizing that there haven't been any major problems in FC where the rules are the same, I am hopeful.

My main concern is that the cables/rods/straps currently used to support floors/sidepods/diffusers are not ruled "bodywork" and creating a "forward facing opening"

However since the rule is the same in FC, and there hasn't been a problem there, I am hopeful that will not be a problem for FB.

Ideally, it would be helpful to exempt wings and the floor/sidepod supporting cables/rods/straps from this rule.

Jerry

[Jnovak]

The rule states gaps or openings. I think gaps can be just about anything.

Thanks ... Jay novak

[R. Pare]

I believe bargeboards/turning vanes were dealt with in FC at some point....but I'm not sure the final ruling on that. Jerry

Never been any sort of ruling on them that I know of. Regardless, even if there had been one, without a change to the GCR, the ruling would now be unenforceable and meaningless.

Since the citations were required to add the little widgets to the outside rear corners of the floor to meet bodywork rules, it appears the floor is not bodywork (even though it was ruled to be bodywork in FA). Therefore, holes in the floor are legal.....but what about the diffuser......is it bodywork.Jerry

Same argument - without any change to the GCR, what was done in the past is meaningless.

The diffuser has always been considered to be bodywork. Even taking the current Glossary definition at it's strict wording, every part of the diffuser that is situated above the floorpan would be considered to be bodywork.

[Purple Frog]

I think club ruled Camadella's barge boards illegal in 2009 because they moved with the suspension.
If they had been attached only from the front wing elements, they might have passed.

[nulrich]

We ran bargeboards at the Watkins Glen F2000 pro race in 2009. They had a single support strut, so there was no "opening" in the bodywork. Chris Camadella finished fifth overall and won the master's class.

They were never protested, but we stopped using them when Rule 20 was invoked (actually, Mike Rand just asked us not to run them again). They moved with the suspension but at that time there was no rule in the GCR preventing movable aerodynamic devices in FC.

Mike Eakin posed an interesting question to me that I'm going to try to show in images. The first definitely shows an opening. What about the second? Aerodynamically there is no significant difference.

Nathan

[Purple Frog]

Nathan's point being that if the perimeter of the opening is not complete, is it an opening? The slit in his figure would have been more obvious if it were wider.

[R. Pare]

The rule states gaps or openings. I think gaps can be just about anything.

Thanks ... Jay novak

True. So what constitutes a "gap" - 1 inch? .000001 inch?

Let's say you had an engine cover that was attached to the outside surface of the cockpit sides with a simple lap joint, and it warped a bit between fasteners so that a portion of it stuck out slightly from the recess in the cockpit sides. Does that now make the resultant gap illegal?

In the case of the Citations at the Runoffs 2 years ago, would those little blocks that they had to put out in front of the tires now be considered illegal (if they continue to assert that the sidepod bottom isn't "bodywork")?

For FF and FC, in looking back at the 2011 GCR, I see the start of the FF bodywork rules state:

For the purposes of this section, bodywork includes all panels external
to the chassis/frame and licked directly by the air stream. This includes
panels above or below the floor pan, and the bottoms of any side pods.

(This of course is applicable to both FF and FC, but has no bearing on FB)

Since for FC wings are mandatory, but have nothing stated saying that they are exempt form being considered "bodywork", then one can only conclude that any "gaps" or "forward facing openings" in them would also be considered illegal by the strict wording of the rule!

I guess this means that you are allowed to run only single-plane wings and no endplates?

[Purple Frog]

Are vanes under diffusers barge boards?

[R. Pare]

Nathan:

If that part were bodywork and not suspension, then by a strict interpretation of the rule, that slot would be illegal.

However, for FB, even if it were suspension, it would be considered illegal since FB has no statement modifying or overriding the wording of the "Body" definition in the Glossary (which clearly includes the suspension as being "body")!

[R. Pare]

Are vanes under diffusers barge boards?

No. A "barge board", while it has no official definition, is considered around the world as an entirely different thing. As concerns FF and FC, if I remember correctly, the rewrite proposal addressed this issue by making the rule apply only for things a certain distance forward of the rear axle centerline (30 inches or something like that).

However, a legit question would be whether or not they would also be subject to the "gaps or openings" rule. Again, by a strict interpretation, I believe they would be.

Probably also, any vanes on top of undertrays or sidepod bottoms would be considered illegal!

[R. Pare]

Oops - it gets even worse for FB:

By these rules, it is now established that you can run only single-plane wings and no endplates, since anything else would end up forming some sort of forward facing opening or gap.

But now you also have to make sure that your new, single-plane rear wing is not situated directly above the undertray, since that also would form an an illegal gap or opening.

Guess what? Get rid of your 2 a-arm suspension designs as well - the arms create "gaps" between themselves. Looks like beam axles might just be the ticket for the future!

Oops. Can't even do that - there is a gap between the tires and the sides of the cockpit panels. Guess there will be a whole new meaning the word "slider"!

I just love it when the people who write the rules have no clue as to the ramifications..........

[nulrich]

I think this rule must be a holdover from FF, since it obviously can't apply to any current winged car.

The F3 rules don't have a blanket rule prohibiting gaps or openings. Instead, they have a strict definition of where you can and cannot have bodywork, and exclude those areas where barge boards would be most effective (new for 2012). They do have a rule prohibiting "apertures" in specific areas of the bodywork.

By the way, here's the F3 definition of bodywork:

1.4 Bodywork
All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air stream, except the rollover structures and the parts definitely associated with the mechanical functioning of the engine, transmission and running gear. Airboxes and radiators are considered to be part of the bodywork.

Nathan

[R. Pare]

I think this rule must be a holdover from FF, since it obviously can't apply to any current winged car.
Nathan

It does, but it most certainly does apply to current winged cars whenever there isn't any wording saying otherwise.

Of course, the main difference between now and 20 or 30 years ago is that back then, people actually used common sense when interpreting just how far to apply a rule or to stretch it.

[Jnovak]

True. So what constitutes a "gap" - 1 inch? .000001 inch?

For FF and FC, in looking back at the 2011 GCR, I see the start of the FF bodywork rules state:

For the purposes of this section, bodywork includes all panels external
to the chassis/frame and licked directly by the air stream. This includes
panels above or below the floor pan, and the bottoms of any side pods.

(This of course is applicable to both FF and FC, but has no bearing on FB)

Obviously the new (old) rule needs more clarity, UNLESS the CRB does not want clarity. If they do not want clarity then this wording with out additional info leaves tech & the CRB a lot of latitude.

Frankly, this is how NASCAR does things. If they do not "like" what you have done they simply tell you and you change it or go home.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[R. Pare]

Obviously the new (old) rule needs more clarity, UNLESS the CRB does not want clarity. If they do not want clarity then this wording with out additional info leaves tech & the CRB a lot of latitude.

Frankly, this is how NASCAR does things. If they do not "like" what you have done they simply tell you and you change it or go home.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

I'm not sure that everyone on the CRB actually understands that there is an issue.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that the basic rule set was written 27 years ago, by and for people who understood what things were supposed to mean, even if the wording wasn't a perfect in getting from point A to point B.

10 or whatever years ago the club decided to make the Technical Glossary an official part of rules interpretation. Sounded like a good idea, but too many of the definitions either made zero sense, or ran counter to what had been actual practice in certain classes for 30 years or more.

As relates to this new FB rule, the Glossary definition of "Body" is worded such that everything above the floor pan, including suspension, wheels, tires, wings, etc, are now defined as "body". Even now, 10 years after I first bitched about it, it remains unchanged and an official part of how the rules are interpreted. Only in FF ( and by direct connection, FC) has a definition been inserted that overrides the Glossary (done for starting in 2010).

FB is still subject to the Glossary definition, so until something changes, all of what I've outlined here are the inescapable conclusions as to what FB cars are allowed to do (at least in my opinion! ).


About the last organization I would ever quote for technical clarity (or competency) is Nascar!

[Jnovak]

About the last organization I would ever quote for technical clarity (or competency) is Nascar!

You are very mistaken about the technical competence of NASCAR Richard. This is very typical of the road racing community. NASCAR truely understands their intent of the rule book and they enforce it very strictly. It may not have always been that way say 20 years ago but it is that way now.

1st you need to understand that they are running a business that actually makes a ton of money and you should also remember that the racing business (NASCAR in it's entirety) is the largest single private sector employer in North Carolina.

There a plenty of extremely bright people in NASCAR land and they can hold their own anywhere. Now this is not to say that the cars are as technically complex as an F1 car but they are easily as complex as just about anything else. The top teams all have top engineers, modelers, aerodynamicists etc. This is easily the toughest most competitve racing series in the world. Just look at qualifying at just about any race, it makes FV look easy by comparison.

Here is an example. NASCAR race engines are absolutely amazing WRT their BMEP. Remember that these are 2 valve pushrod 360 ci V8s that turn between 9,000 and 10,000 rpm on some tracks. The BMEP or your top NASCAR engines is higher than a current Cosworth V8 F1 engine. I can guarantee you that this is not an accident but is the result of some brilliant people.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[R. Pare]

Jay:

Note that I stated organization, not teams. Big difference.......

I, as well as a ton of other companies, have dealt with Nascar for a looooong time, and you would be amazed at the tales of technical incompetency in the tech department - and especially the tech inspection track side - that they all have to tell. For the majority of these companies, 90% or more of their work is with round-rounders, so it would be pretty hard to tag them as biased against round-rounders!

That said, the ability of the front office to sell their product makes everyone else look like idiots.

[Daryl DeArman]

About the last organization I would ever quote for technical clarity (or competency) is Nascar!

Which is why he quoted the way they do things. It's purporsely vague and then if they don't like your interpretation/application you change it or put it back on the trailer.

[R. Pare]

Which makes it extremely hard - if not impossible at times - for both teams and suppliers to figure out what to do (and sometime rediculously expensive) when they cannot even measure the same item the same way twice in a row, with the result naturally being that they don't get anywhere near the same answer - and and when their errors are pointed out their retort is: "Not our problem - it's up to the teams to deal with it".

[Northwind]

Reading the new rule or what ever it is makes me want to puke.

I would have thought that simple rule could have been written that would follow along these lines. I think years ago there was a rule that stated that all ducted air must pass thru heat exchangers. Sure this rule did not cover engine intake openings but would cover air to brakes, oil, water, and engine exterior or engine bay cooling. A second qualifer duct allowed to tranfer air directly to the engine intake system could be allowed. By using the word duct a definition of the word could be generated.

duct =any enclosed shape or partially enclosed shape greater than 75% (or XX) of being theoretically enclosed with an imaginary straight line between the shape end points, and has a throat length of greater than XX cm is considered a duct.

Any ducts not used for these puposes are illegal.

Obiviously legal throat length and the partial enclosed percentage should be discussed by the user group for a meaningful value.

I think something like this would have been better than "forward facing openings" or "gaps".

Feel free to jump all over this with criticism as maybe somebody will read this that has some influence on rule verbiage.

[R. Pare]

Actually, while we have all had our fun ridiculing the rule, it is after all just a copy of what has been in the FF/FC rules for 27 years, and to the uninitiated, looks and sounds good on the surface.

The problem is, of course, that the manner in which the rules are interpreted has changed a lot over the years (never mind technology), so now is a good time to revisit rules such as this one ( and especially the Glossary definition of "Body") and re-write/re-word them to reflect all those changes and modern needs.

Hmmm.... I seem to remember a rewrite proposal for FF/FC last year that everybody got up in arms about................

So, the questions are these:

1 - What are they trying to prevent?

2 - In trying to prevent a certain something, what wording do they need to accomplish that and not inadvertently make something else illegal?

3 - Will they be willing to actually re-visit this new rule and re-word it?

Those of you in the positions to affect this: What are your answers?

[Rick Kean]

Why not just include some examples of what the rule is supposed to mean as part of the CRB Tech Bulletin?

Rick Kean

[JerryH]

No need to rewrite or change the rules.....just a clarification as to what constitutes a "forward facing opening or gap"......and stating that it doesn't apply to wings, suspension, etc.(this could be a long list).

Jerry

[Mike Holland]

As I read the rule, a barge board placed ahead of a side pod would be legal because the forward facing gap would be for engine cooling.

[R. Pare]

In that particular case, the operative word may be "necessary" - if the engine cooling was adequate without the bargeboard, you might have a hard time proving it's necessity.