New FF/FC Construction Rules

[Tom Valet]

September Fastrack, proposal for new FF/FC constructions rules, effective January 2013, member input requested:

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...proposal-1.pdf

[problemchild]

I don't see any allowance for FIA-spec safety side pods for FF. Certainly no advantage in performance (very strictly regulated), they are certainly an advantage in safety. Bad business by SCCA to make 5 existing 2011-12 USA Mygales (and potential imported FIA-spec cars) "unwelcome" and force them to go Pro racing or make significant alterations.

There is no "son of FIA-spec FF safety side pod" to worry about.

[BWC54]

Bad business by SCCA to make 5 existing 2011-12 USA Mygales (and potential imported FIA-spec cars) "unwelcome" and force them to go Pro racing or make significant alterations.

Those cars aren't SCCA legal under the current specs, are they?

[Purple Frog]

I equate this activity to the big political expense generated by many states recently to control voter fraud. They say there hasn't been any, but they are spending a ton of our money to enact new rules to prevent it.

For the last few years the FC/FF rules have been stable. The result has been a healthy environment for the classes. We have seen three new FC constructors come on the scene, and maybe a fourth by October. In FF we have seen one new constructor. Seems like a good environment to me.

There has been no outcry by the membership for a rule change. Scrutineers haven't had problems enforcing the rules. So why?

Read this new proposal carefully. It is not a rewrite. There are real changes imbedded in the red ink. And... a few new loopholes will be created.

On top of that there is no attempt to separate the FF/FC classes and make a clearer set of rules. The argument being the two classes can use the same chassis. If that is the criteria, then we should combine FV and FST, and merge FB rules into FC/FF (because they can use the same chassis.)

YMMV. So tell the CRB your opinion.

[Wren]

merge FB rules into FC/FF (because they can use the same chassis.)

That would have made FB a much better class. These rules seem to bring FF/FC closer to FB rules, which seems kind of dumb.

[problemchild]

Those cars aren't SCCA legal under the current specs, are they?

The safety side pods are the only illegal feature, AFAIK, in the existing or proposed SCCA rule packages. The roll-over structure and chassis has been approved by SCCA. In general, the FIA specs are more restrictive.

Anybody who claims that wider pods, that are legal by the FIA rules, are an advantage or potential advantage, is ignorant of those rules. They are increased frontal area and increased weight ..... that provide a specified layer of safety structure almost a foot outside the chassis structure.

[starkejt]

One of those things in red looks great.

[Purple Frog]

Josh,
I like that one also.

[Tom Valet]

One of those things in red looks great.

The new section allowing instruments to be mounted on wood panels?

[starkejt]

The new section allowing instruments to be mounted on wood panels?

As long as you have absolutely no follow-up questions, yes.

[BWC54]

The minimum exhaust height in the table conflicts with 9.1.1.D.1.s.9 in the current FF specifications. Which one will govern?

[KevinFirlein]

the new one as this is a ' re write '

[Art Smith]

more bad ideas from a club acting in my opinion more and more like a trade association and a puppet for the special interests than an organization looking out for the interests of its members.

WHO is requesting the rule changes? why has an appointed "committee" recommendation been used to hide who's behind this??
WHAT unstated problem(s) is being addressed?
WHY have the rules for the TWO classes been merged making both unreadable?
What's up with shorter tails in FFord?? Precursor to class consolodation just like a FS being given track time at a
National? .........without a Ford engine?????

is this someone's answer to new domestic and foreign competition offering innovative new products??

surely one of the new tin top classes would serve as a better light post than Fford!!!

write if you think it will do any good. writing for me has been a complete waste of time in the past; it's been my impression the recipients aren't interested the facts or in your opinions and don't appreciate hearing from members with different views (without regard to the merits of the member's positition) ..............

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Tom Valet]

The minimum exhaust height in the table conflicts with 9.1.1.D.1.s.9 in the current FF specifications. Which one will govern?

These rules are for new cars to be built after January 1, 2013. Cars already built will continue to be governed by the current rules. At least I think(hope) that is correct.

EDIT, looking at the new rule proposal I see my answer is probably wrong, these will be the rules for all cars built after 1986.

[Wren]

I had been wondering where Art had gotten off to. Good to see you again.

Still hung up on the original car getting to go out for the non-racing sessions at a race that you didn't even attend? You may want to work through that somehow.

[BWC54]

These rules are for new cars to be built after January 1, 2013. Cars already built will continue to be governed by the current rules. At least I think(hope) that is correct.

EDIT, looking at the new rule proposal I see my answer is probably wrong, these will be the rules for all cars built after 1986.

I think your edit is correct. My point is that they didn't give any detail in the Kent or Honda engine section in the reorganization proposal. If they roll them in as they are now there will be a conflict between the table and the existing FF height reqirement. If they change it to 20 cm they are causing a lot of FF owners to have to modify their exhausts to comply with something I don't consider a real safety issue.

[Art Smith]

Wren-

if the rules don't apply equally to all, then the rules are for sale and I'm of the opinion that's something that can't be worked through; it needs to be fixed!! old fashioned I understand, but those are the values that were being taught sixty years ago in upstate New York .............

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[KevinFirlein]

the change is to 90cm as I read it for exhaust or bodywork minus roll bar or air box. DB1 is a big loop hole there as the entire rear tail at the top is the air box

[reidhazelton]

Ok, stupid qustions.......

1. Why is this needed? What does this fix, or what is the point?
2. Is it just me or is this very confusing to read having fc and ff rules combined in this way? Several times it says something is prohibited, but then later on gives acceptable dimensions or criteria for what is said to be prohibited? "You can not have cheese in your sandwich.....cheese must be cheddar" huh?

Not looking to stir the pot, I just really don't get it. Someone edjumacate me.

RH

[Wren]

Wren-

if the rules don't apply equally to all, then the rules are for sale and I'm of the opinion that's something that can't be worked through; it needs to be fixed!! old fashioned I understand, but those are the values that were being taught sixty years ago in upstate New York .............

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

I understand. But, allowing that FS to run in the practice qualifying sessions does not equate to anything dark, evil, immoral, or "for sale." You have been making intimations that Honda paid people off or somehow bought their way into FF without a shred of proof. It doesn't do you any good to look like some kind of insane conspiracy theorist.

It is good to see you back.

[RobLav]

I'm on the same page as Art. What is broken that so critically needs fixed? More nonsense behind a Wizard of OZ curtain "committee". The logic to combine FF and FC rules because they can be made from the same chassis completely falls apart because of FB. The Emperor has no clothes. It's time for me to seek another empire.

[Wren]

Ok, stupid qustions.......

1. Why is this needed? What does this fix, or what is the point?
2. Is it just me or is this very confusing to read having fc and ff rules combined in this way? Several times it says something is prohibited, but then later on gives acceptable dimensions or criteria for what is said to be prohibited? "You can not have cheese in your sandwich.....cheese must be cheddar" huh?

Not looking to stir the pot, I just really don't get it. Someone edjumacate me.

RH

I think it is actually easier to read than having to flip back and forth to different rules to make sure that your FF/FC is legal. That has caught multiple people out in recent memory.

I don't think it is perfect and there are parts of it that I don't like, but getting them together like this will keep them from drifting apart. In general, I like that the rules are all in one place but I don't like some of the changes in the rules.

It was a complete **** up for the FB rules to not follow the same example of getting their rules in line with FC/FF. Pointing to that **** up as a reason to not have FF/FC together is not a reasonable argument to me. It should serve as a horrible example that encourages the FC/FF rules to stay together.

[reidhazelton]

Ok, I get that. Keeping together is better I agree. But for the sake of keeping them together does not require a whole bunch of changes. Seems that might be a smoke screen if that is the case. "we combined them to make it easier....not to make rules changes but we did that too."

I keep coming back to why do we need these changes? Combined, ok that works. But why the rewrite? If something occurred and there is no obvious need, then I worry. That is where the conspiracy theories come into play.

Not taking sides, storing the pot, or whatever.....just calling it how I see it. For me I don't much care about the changes for next year anyway. Just bothers me to have these changes when we don't see a problem that needed fixing (refering to rules changes, not combining ff fc.)

[KevinFirlein]

The FB rules got screwed up because they were written AFTER cars were built and instead of just telling those cars 'sorry you dont fit our vision' the rules were cocked about to make existing cars fit. Leaving you with body rules that seem more inline with FA. That isnt the case with FF or FC.

[Matt M.]

The only thing I will ask of people is that they refer to the authors of the re-write as "The Syndicate" - that has a much more menacing tone than asking who who who......
That will make this much more entertaining to read..........

[reidhazelton]

The only thing I will ask of people is that they refer to the authors of the re-write as "The Syndicate" - that has a much more menacing tone than asking who who who......
That will make this much more entertaining to read..........

Huh?

If you know something, just say it please. That kind of thing just make the conspiracy theories run rampant. I don't buy into that stuff, but it creates a lot of noise in the conversation and nothing constructive ever happens after that.

For me, I don't really care WHO, but WHY it was written. No one seems to know why we need it, yet it is there. Maybe I'm a little slow and need these things explained. To me, it solves problems that don't exist unless someone can show me.

[John Robinson II]

Sad, very sad. I think Stan had something to do with the change...now the rear wing can only be rim height. And arent those long upright boards along the top of the engine cover an aerodynamic device? nope cant have them anymore either.

My letter to the crb will ask simply, "if you are combining the rules, why do I have to rehomologate to convert a car to the other class?"
John
PS, I like how they made the citation bodywork legal
PSS, i now have to dump plans to shorten the exhaust in an attempt to get a blown diffuser, er I mean undertray.

[Steve Demeter]

Interesting that the referenced diagrams showing all the referenced dimensions are not in the file.

Also, what about engine specs. Are we to assume that they are unchanged?

Seems kind of haphazard rewrite to me.

Why fix something that is working fine.

Oh yeah, to justify the existence of the various boards and committees.

Ever read "Sunday Driver" by Brock Yates. It is about the 1970 trans Am series when he drove a few races with Warren Agor.


Agor to Yates
"see that tree over there? If one SCCA official was assigned to guard it this weekend they would. but next year there would be a team of them.
The following year they would have a committee to guard the tree.
Eventaully the committee would have sub committees with special meetings, bylaws and officers, all to guard a tree"

And one wonders why something that works fine is being "fixed"

[John Mosteller]

Kevin I think the 80cm being referred to was the change of the rear overhang from 100cm to 80cm. Which will make any FC/FF that was built to the 1986 rules that had a wing or tail with spoiler that is now 100cm(old rule) will have to move their wing forward,shorten their tail or shorten their diffuser.

Why change something that causes many competitors to make changes to something that has been legal for over 25 years?

[R. Pare]

And arent those long upright boards along the top of the engine cover an aerodynamic device? nope cant have them anymore either.

What in the proposal would make them illegal?

My letter to the crb will ask simply, "if you are combining the rules, why do I have to rehomologate to convert a car to the other class?"

You have to do that now, so it is no change at all.

PS, I like how they made the citation bodywork legal

And what about it would have been illegal under the old rules?

[R. Pare]

Kevin I think the 80cm being referred to was the change of the rear overhang from 100cm to 80cm. Which will make any FC/FF that was built to the 1986 rules that had a wing or tail with spoiler that is now 100cm(old rule) will have to move their wing forward,shorten their tail or shorten their diffuser.

Why change something that causes many competitors to make changes to something that has been legal for over 25 years?

I think that got corrected according to a long-standing rule in the club when a written dimension and a dimension in a table or drawing conflict - one version takes prescedent over the other (I forget which), so, since there was an existing conflict, it had to be fixed at some point in time, even without this rewrite.

As far as I know, no one has ever built a car to the 100cm dimension, so if that is the case, it's not a problem for anyone.

Also, what about engine specs. Are we to assume that they are unchanged?

If nothing has been printed for those sections, then there are no changes. As far as I can tell, this is a construction revamp only.

[Tom Valet]

1. I am going to assume that whatever committee developed these rules didnt just send them to the CRB with a note saying "here ya go, the new FF/FC constructions rules." There must have been a memo written at some point describing the issues that existed, why a change was needed, what the process was that was used to develop the new rules, and the effect the new rules would have on the classes. Why not share that memo with the membership rather than asking us to blindly comment on a rule change that we know nothing about.

2. Any rules change that applies retroactively has to be looked at very critically because it has the effect if not the intent of potentially banning things that were legal under the rules when they were done and are now being made illegal.

3. Was an analysis done to determine what effect these rules would have on existing cars? How many cars if any that are currently legal would be illegal under the new rules? Which cars, what years, and in what regard would they be illegal? If no such analysis was done then how can we even consider adopting the new rules without any idea of the impact on existing cars?

4. Is a driver who riveted side panels onto his frame at 6 inch centers and who raced legally that way for 20 years now expected to go back and drill out those rivets to make his now illegal car legal again after 20 years? If yes, how is that a good thing for the class?

5. Is this all really about banning the Radon and if yes then lets get everything out into the open, what is behind the issue and who stands to benefit from this rewrite. Speaking of which, we know the original Radon design was deemed illegal and the design was changed to conform to the current rules. Would those currently legal Radons be illegal under the new rules? If yes how is that good for the class?

[Dick R.]

I see no red in the pre 86 section. Does that mean none of the "not changes" changes apply to 85 or older?

Dick
85 VD FF

[Wren]

Huh?

If you know something, just say it please. That kind of thing just make the conspiracy theories run rampant. I don't buy into that stuff, but it creates a lot of noise in the conversation and nothing constructive ever happens after that.

He doesn't know anything. There is no conspiracy theory. The origin of this rule change has been made clear in previous threads. It came out of the 2011 FSRAC and no one from that committee has any real financial interest in FF/FC. Anyone who really wanted to know the source of this should already know it. Noise is an excellent description of the questions about who wrote this.

For me, I don't really care WHO, but WHY it was written. No one seems to know why we need it, yet it is there. Maybe I'm a little slow and need these things explained. To me, it solves problems that don't exist unless someone can show me.

I suspect the "why" is because there has been so much discussion on making the rules better. I would be interested to know if there are any cars out there that would be made illegal and why by this rules change.

[reidhazelton]

1. I am going to assume that whatever committee developed these rules didnt just send them to the CRB with a note saying "here ya go, the new FF/FC constructions rules." There must have been a memo written at some point describing the issues that existed, why a change was needed, what the process was that was used to develop the new rules, and the effect the new rules would have on the classes. Why not share that memo with the membership rather than asking us to blindly comment on a rule change that we know nothing about.

2. Any rules change that applies retroactively has to be looked at very critically because it has the effect if not the intent of potentially banning things that were legal under the rules when they were done and are now being made illegal.

3. Was an analysis done to determine what effect these rules would have on existing cars? How many cars if any that are currently legal would be illegal under the new rules? Which cars, what years, and in what regard would they be illegal? If no such analysis was done then how can we even consider adopting the new rules without any idea of the impact on existing cars?

4. Is a driver who riveted side panels onto his frame at 6 inch centers and who raced legally that way for 20 years now expected to go back and drill out those rivets to make his now illegal car legal again after 20 years? If yes, how is that a good thing for the class?

5. Is this all really about banning the Radon and if yes then lets get everything out into the open, what is behind the issue and who stands to benefit from this rewrite. Speaking of which, we know the original Radon design was deemed illegal and the design was changed to conform to the current rules. Would those currently legal Radons be illegal under the new rules? If yes how is that good for the class?

Thanks Tom.

[Wren]

I think that this should have been broken up into rules merger and then the rules changes proposed seperately. From my reading the biggest change that I see is in the chassis bottom construction rules. I am not sure that I see a lot of other new changes.

4. Is a driver who riveted side panels onto his frame at 6 inch centers and who raced legally that way for 20 years now expected to go back and drill out those rivets to make his now illegal car legal again after 20 years? If yes, how is that a good thing for the class?

By my reading of the rules that would still be legal as long as it is at least .060" 6061 or 18 gauge steel.

currently legal Radons

Whoa. Let's not go crazy.

[jimh3063]

Art Smith, you are man who speaks the truth. This is an agenda driven attempt to change the rules by specific people with a very clear agenda.

Let the bull**** continue.

[Matt M.]

He doesn't know anything..

Exactly - For once I agree with Wren........ on the one point.
The rest I find suspect.....
I'm just enjoying some popcorn and lite reading

I just thought the reading would be better if we referred to the authors(s) as something more creative..... Committee just sounds like something contrived in central Georgia someplace....

[Tom Valet]

I think that this should have been broken up into rules merger and then the rules changes proposed seperately. From my reading the biggest change that I see is in the chassis bottom construction rules. I am not sure that I see a lot of other new changes.



By my reading of the rules that would still be legal as long as it is at least .060" 6061 or 18 gauge steel.




Whoa. Let's not go crazy.

Wren, thanks for clarifying the side panel example I gave, i reread the rules and that was a bad example by me, but the point stands, are there current legal cars that would be illegal under the new rules and if so what are they?

As far as the Radons go Wren, are you saying that the current cars are not legal? If not, why not? I have info that they were officially declared legal by the SCCA, do you have info that they were not?

[Wren]

Art Smith, you are man who speaks the truth. This is an agenda driven attempt to change the rules by specific people with a very clear agenda.

Let the bull**** continue.

Be specific or you are full of ****. This was already hashed out in the last thread about this.

As far as the Radons go Wren, are you saying that the current cars are not legal? If not, why not? I have info that they were officially declared legal by the SCCA, do you have info that they were not?

I certainly don't think that they are legal. There are more features than just what they got rulings on that are questionable.