New FF/FC Construction Rules

[Purple Frog]

Geez,
I go away for 12 hours....

To be clear, I always thought that the reason there are 4 Citation guys on the FSRAC is because those guys are super serious club racers that are willing to donate their time and energies to helping the club. I know all four of them. Great guys. Hard competitors. Dedicated to the Club.

Steve Lathrop (one of the best engineers i have ever met) did mention two things above that might need clarification.

1. The Radons have not been protested. That does seem to be true. It could be because of three possible reasons:
a. Fellow FC competitors don't have the balls to protest it. (somehow I can't seem to believe that.)
b. Fellow FC competitors can't figure out what is illegal to protest. (more likely)
c. Fellow FC competitors just don't care.

2. Yes the Radon did fail early self-protests. Those were mentioned by Steve. But, Nathan went back to the drawing board, made redesigns and again self-protested himself. He passed all those resulting self-protests. Because of the self-protest process, those results are secret until Nathan were to need to give them to a Scrutineer in reponse to a protest. No protest has occured, so Nathan has not needed to produce those documents. So, none of us know what may be in those papers (including the FSRAC, Steve, Richard, Wren, me, etc.).

Ok, back to the regularly scheduled ranting.

[Purple Frog]

OK Sportsfans,

I just read every post since #41. No one has answered my question in post #41.

I'm seriously trying to objectively understand some of these issues.

Wren took a guess at it. But, he wasn't one of the authors of this revision, and he admitted it was a guess.

Steve has posted. Richard has posted. But no one has explained why we need to extend the bottom reference plane forward to the front bulkhead in FC. Or, conversely, what is so wrong with leaving the front point at the rear of the front tires (as it currently is).

It has been over 24 hours. No answer.

Tom Valet's point that we can't get explanations so we can objectively judge what we have to vote on....

[R. Pare]

OK, I'll bite - even though it is midnight and I'm ready to finally go home.

The class was conceived as a flat-bottomed class, with the allowed vertical deviation for the whole bottom of the car to be 1 inch. That allowance inadvertently got changed when some words were somehow left out in the 2010 rewrite that were never restored through the Errors and Omissions process. Extending the reference area to the front bulkhead restores that original design feature. The new wording in the Chassis section pertaining to the floorpan deviation allows raised noses - a Radon and RFR concession - but the undersides shaping is now totally controlled in the Bodywork rules.

My take on it, anyway, for what it is worth.

[Purple Frog]

OK. thank you for an answer.

I see your point.
But, I don't agree that anything was left out in 2010. I think the 2010 revision folks clearly changed the rule to define the 1" deviation flat bottom part to start at the rear of the front wheels, and continue to the front of the rear wheels. Whether we liked it or not. I sort of like it, you probably don't.

Recently certain RFR people asked if they could chop off the bottom of their car at the rear of the front tires. I told them that my interpretation was "No". But, my reason was that in their case that part of their design was also their chassis. And as the chassis it had to be flat from the rear bulkhead to the front bulkhead. And they wouldn't be able to declare the middle rails as their chassis bottom because they had a greater than 1" bend in them (under the driver's calves). I drew it all out for Ralph so he would understand. They (some RFR owners) would like this new rule where the bottom of the chassis no longer has to be flat (they could declare the middle rails their chassis), but they would like to keep the front edge of the reference plane at the rear of the front tires, so they could chop back the splitter.

For those trying to understand and not just rant. One change in this new proposed rule set is that in the future the bottom of the chassis (not to be confused with the reference plane) will not longer have to be flat from the rear bulkhead to the front bulkhead. So, chassis will be able to swoop upward as they go forward. But, also under this new rule (bodywork section) the flat bottom reference plane will be extended all the way to the front bulkhead. Opening up a whole new possibility for designs we haven't seen. But, extending that bottom to the front bulkhead would also negate a lot of the benefit of newly possible high noses. So, you could design a wizzy high nose car, but that splitter going clear to the front bulkhead would probably kill any benefit. Unless of course your front bulkhead is now back about the rear of the front tires.


OBTW....
IMHO The removal of all the language defining the floor pan, and removal of the stress bearing panel definition opens up a bunch of loopholes.

I had always thought that language was like scripture since 1986. "Intent" and all that.

[Charles Warner]

Most interesting discussion. For those who expect the Club to lead them by the hand and explain the ramifications and effects of the rules changes I would suggest they wait in vain. Part of this industry revolves around the "better mousetrap" theory. The rules are now explained far more clearly than they ever have been. It is up to the designer, builder, driver, etc. to read said rules and decide if he can find the unfair advantage. As Richard has pointed out, posting a question as to one's legality reference a certain aspect of their car will prompt in depth discussions on the forum. But, that is all they will be. Only the Appeals Process can define legality and that is only valid until the next appeal.

Under the NPRM process the explanation of the "why" of the change is usually put forth up front. During the process members can have their chance for input. (They rarely make official input and then whine that the Club doesn't listen.) As far as deciding what the rules allow, read them, study them (as Jay urges) and apply them. Don't expect to be led by the hand. And, no, I don't think the Club should have a "launch party" to make sure everyone understands all of the nuances and factors of the new rules.

That said, I think I saw Steve in a black helicopter a couple of months ago . . . . but I may be mistaken.

[Rick Kirchner]

Since I got into the R&D business and out of the Production/Sustainment business 22 years ago, it's been a while since I wrote a Engineering Change Proposal for a production military system. but back in the 80s, you had the changes (as in Change from: xxx To: yyy) and then there was a section on why the change was necessary, and any supporting documentation/calculations.

If you want configuration management, and a history of why things were done, that's the way to do it. Rules, parts, works either way....

[Steve Bamford]

Since I got into the R&D business and out of the Production/Sustainment business 22 years ago, it's been a while since I wrote a Engineering Change Proposal for a production military system. but back in the 80s, you had the changes (as in Change from: xxx To: yyy) and then there was a section on why the change was necessary, and any supporting documentation/calculations.

If you want configuration management, and a history of why things were done, that's the way to do it. Rules, parts, works either way....

I couldn't agree more. This whole thread has heated up without good reason. I don't think it is that much to inform your customers/members as to why changes are being made without pointing them back to previous versions of Fastrack & saying figure it out from there. Some people sure are lacking customer service skills.

[Tom Valet]

Most interesting discussion. For those who expect the Club to lead them by the hand and explain the ramifications and effects of the rules changes I would suggest they wait in vain. Part of this industry revolves around the "better mousetrap" theory. The rules are now explained far more clearly than they ever have been. It is up to the designer, builder, driver, etc. to read said rules and decide if he can find the unfair advantage. As Richard has pointed out, posting a question as to one's legality reference a certain aspect of their car will prompt in depth discussions on the forum. But, that is all they will be. Only the Appeals Process can define legality and that is only valid until the next appeal.

Under the NPRM process the explanation of the "why" of the change is usually put forth up front. During the process members can have their chance for input. (They rarely make official input and then whine that the Club doesn't listen.) As far as deciding what the rules allow, read them, study them (as Jay urges) and apply them. Don't expect to be led by the hand. And, no, I don't think the Club should have a "launch party" to make sure everyone understands all of the nuances and factors of the new rules.

That said, I think I saw Steve in a black helicopter a couple of months ago . . . . but I may be mistaken.

Charles, here is why I disagree with you: 99 percent of club racers "self-engineer" their cars but are not engineers. A major rule revision is proposed that is RETROACTIVE and affects every FF and FC made since 1986. Is it too much to ask for the club to simply state: we have studied these rules and no car currently legal will be affected?

You however suggest that we should have to figure that out on our own without any knowledge to do so.

[Jnovak]

Since I got into the R&D business and out of the Production/Sustainment business 22 years ago, it's been a while since I wrote a Engineering Change Proposal for a production military system. but back in the 80s, you had the changes (as in Change from: xxx To: yyy) and then there was a section on why the change was necessary, and any supporting documentation/calculations.

If you want configuration management, and a history of why things were done, that's the way to do it. Rules, parts, works either way....

Rick, this comment is not an attempt to be a smart ass, but simply to make sure people know how the SCCA system works.

I assume that when you were in the Production/Sustainment business you, and many others, were getting paid to do a job. All of the people on the FSRAC the CRB and various rules committees are volunteers and use up a great deal of their personal time to accomplish all of these things that we need as a club. I know most of those people and they spend thousands of man hours trying to make the process work.

The SCCA needs a volunteer to manage all the Engineering Change Proposals and resulting supporting documentation. Any volunteers?

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Tom Valet]

Jay, when these proposals are sent from the committees to the CRB, do they come to the CRB with some sort of committee report? I would find it hard to believe that the rules change proposals are sent to the CRB in the form that they are presented to the membership, ie only the proposed new wording without any explanation.

Why cant the reports that the CRB receives be shared with the membership? Or if they dont want to share those reports, why cant the SCCA (which has paid staff) prepare a memo to the membership that accompanies the proposal so we know what is behind the rule change, etc?

Thanks

Tom

[R. Pare]

But, I don't agree that anything was left out in 2010. I think the 2010 revision folks clearly changed the rule to define the 1" deviation flat bottom part to start at the rear of the front wheels, and continue to the front of the rear wheels.

Nothing changed in that rewrite concerning the reference surface described in Bodywork. It was in the Chassis section that the wording was left out.

[Wren]

1. The Radons have not been protested. That does seem to be true. It could be because of three possible reasons:
a. Fellow FC competitors don't have the balls to protest it. (somehow I can't seem to believe that.)
b. Fellow FC competitors can't figure out what is illegal to protest. (more likely)
c. Fellow FC competitors just don't care.

There is a fourth option:

d. They are conscientious to avoid attending a club race where the car could be protested and found illegal in some kind of binding fashion. You can scrutineer it all that you want, but you will not be able to make a decision that amounts to anything more than your opinion. The COA is the only authority to determine rules interpretations.

Get someone to bring a Radon to Barber next weekend. I will convince someone in the group to add me as their entrant. I will bring a stack of protest sheets and prove that the reason for lack of protests has nothing to do with not being able to figure out what is illegal on the car.

2. Yes the Radon did fail early self-protests. Those were mentioned by Steve. But, Nathan went back to the drawing board, made redesigns and again self-protested himself. He passed all those resulting self-protests. Because of the self-protest process, those results are secret until Nathan were to need to give them to a Scrutineer in reponse to a protest. No protest has occured, so Nathan has not needed to produce those documents. So, none of us know what may be in those papers (including the FSRAC, Steve, Richard, Wren, me, etc.).

Ok, back to the regularly scheduled ranting.

The only thing that I know is what I have been told by people associated with Radon. From what I have been told, they are not even starting to scratch the surface of questions about the car.

I do find it interesting that even you have not seen the rulings that allow some of the things that were initially ruled illegal. I don't doubt that these rulings exist, I do doubt that they cover nearly all of the things on the car that are questionable.

The only club race that I know of the car entering was the Sebring Winternational that Bob Wright ran.

Until the car shows up to a club race and survives a thorough protest process, I see no reason to believe that it is legal. I am not holding my breath to see them actually show up and risk that. It is much easier to sit back and claim that the car is legal and make noise about conspiracies to hide all of the questions that surround it.

[Camadella]

Hi all,

I've been reticent to post on this thread, since to paraphrase the old expression, it isn't productive to get into a pissing match.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a part owner RadonSport, and I have worked with Nathan since the inception of the car. I don't mean to hide that fact.

Here's my $0.03:

Despite statements to the contrary, there is no question that the proposed rules will make the Radon car illegal, with very little chance of being able to be modified sufficiently to become legal. I personally believe that was the unwritten intent of the rules makers, although that is just my opinion.

Posts above state that the new rules proposal will not make any currently legal car illegal. I believe that the posters think that the Radon is not currently legal, and therefore feel justified in saying so. I believe that the rules makers believe that they are just making clear that it is still illegal by rewriting the rules so as to make it more clear that the Radon is illegal.

I disagree with the fact that car is not currently legal. We performed the "self protest" process twice. The first time, the car was found not to be in complaince, and we made changes as required, and then resubmitted the design to the COA. On the second attempt, the car was found to be legal within the rules in effect at that time. When that happens (as PF stated above), those results are not made public, but we have them nonetheless. In addition, SCCA National Tech inspectors, including Mike Eakin (aka Purple Frog) have spent many hours examining and discussing the technical design features of the Radon, and have not found any illegal features.

I also refute the fact that the Radon has not been to any club events. It has been enterered in at least eight club events that I know of. If you want to buy your plane tickets, I will be happy enter a Radon in the FLR Glen Regional at Watkins Glen on Sep. 14-16, and you can bring your pre-filled protest forms with you.

Mr. Lathrop above states that all of the constructors were consulted as part of the 1986 rewrite of the rules. That is admirable, and it only makes sense to involve ALL car constructors in any rules rewrite. However, I assure everyone that no one at RadonSport was contacted in any way in consideration of the current rules rewrite, or any rules rewrite for that matter.

Unless I'm mistaken, RadonSport sold more FC cars than any other manufacturer this year. We sold seven complete cars (around $420,000 worth), all of which are racing, and I'm reasonably certain that is the most by any manufacturer. RFR has several cars racing as well, but I'm not certain that they were actually sold to their current owners, but were instead leased. So again, unless I'm mistaken, it appears to the casual observer that the SCCA rules makers are trying to oust the biggest manufacturer of new FC cars, but again, that's just my opinion.

FC is not a vintage class. Progress happens. Materials change. Costs of what were once very expensive materials have become less than the cost of the traditional materials. We think the Radon is probably the safest FC car in existence because it uses some of those modern materials.

When the Radon was designed, did we take advantage of every area that we reasonable could under the rules? Of course we did, but isn't that the idea? You're supposed to meet the letter of the rules - ask Jim Hall, Adrian Newey, and every other race engineer.

You can't go back and say, "Oh that's not what we meant when we wrote those rules, and since we're old, and we've been around for a long time, we have the right to change the rules to say what we really meant back then." It's not back then. It's now. And in my opinion, you don't have that right.

At the end of the day, the biggest question is "Why?". No one on earth was talking about changing the rules prior to the introduction of the Radon. Really. The FC class had been performing to the general satisfaction of the racing public for some time. I haven't actually seen a lot of people clamoring for a rules change. The Radon did not blow away the competition, even with a very good driver. In fact, it introduces some excellent (again, in my opinion) design and safety features that other cars should think about using.

As I stated up front, I'm not going to entertain a pissing match - just stating my opinion.

Cheers,

Chris C.

[starkejt]

1.) People were talking about updating the rules pre-Radon. I don't know if this proposal is aimed at the Radon or not, though.

2.) Some people think the Radon is not legal even given the COA rulings. I don't think I'm convinced either way.

3.) What part of the proposed change makes the Radon definitely illegal?

[Daryl DeArman]

Until the car shows up to a club race and survives a thorough protest process, I see no reason to believe that it is legal.

Ha! The realist in me thinks the same about every car on the grid. It's all just a matter of degree.

Posts above state that the new rules proposal will not make any currently car illegal.

That's generally an approach utilized to convince more people that the new rule(s) do no harm to anybody. I see it as a huge because generally somebody wouldn't put forth the effort if they weren't trying to prevent or protect something.

Mr. Lathrop above states that all of the constructors were consulted as part of the 1986 rewrite of the rules. That is admirable, and it only makes sense to involve ALL car constructors in any rules rewrite. However, I assure everyone that no one at RadonSport was contacted in any way in consideration of the current rules rewrite, or any rules rewrite for that matter.

Another

When the Radon was designed, did we take advantage of every area that we reasonable could under the rules? Of course we did, but isn't that the idea? You're supposed to meet the letter of the rules - ask Jim Hall, Adrian Newey, and every other race engineer.

You can't go back and say, "Oh that's not what we meant when we wrote those rules, and since we're old, and we've been around for a long time, we have the right to change the rules to say what we really meant back then."

Yes, it certainly is your job. One Radon did better than most and the reaction is now protection. Lets agree "they" really were working on it before they knew of the Radon. The process wasn't a priority until someone built a better mousetrap. Then the process was expedited, in my opinion too late.

It's been my experience that often times ol' timers have a very clear vision of the intent and have a dificult time seeing things from any other perspective. Or when they do they chose to do nothing about "fixing" things until somebody takes advantage of the loophole/grey area. It's not a problem, until it's a problem. That's a problem.

Not too different than the whole Jerremy Hill screwing because MC engines in FC weren't a concern---until they were a concern. Same thing will happen in FB as soon as someone gets a BMW or ZX motor to work well in a good chassis.

[starkejt]

Since everyone knows I'm a moron, will someone tell me in small words what part of the proposal flips the switch to "Radon illegal for sure?" I'm not seeing it.

[Daryl DeArman]

Since everyone knows I'm a moron, will someone tell me in small words what part of the proposal flips the switch to "Radon illegal for sure?" I'm not seeing it.

The red words.

[starkejt]

But I want an executive summary. I can't be expected to read all that.

[KenT]

But I want an executive summary. I can't be expected to read all that.

I think that is exactly what Tom Valet is asking for... the executive summary explaining "why".

[starkejt]

I think that is exactly what Tom Valet is asking for... the executive summary explaining "why".

So what are you saying?

[Steve Demeter]

Unfortunately, what it shows is that many people see the words "Rule Change Proposal" and panic, not bothering to actually spend the time necessary to properly read and digest it .

If one actually spends the time to read the proposal, it gets rid of a ton of grey areas, spells up some specific allowances and restrictions in fairly plain language (and yes, some stuff could still stand some improvement, but overall it ain't bad), and is a TON easier to figure out what is and isn't legal when it comes to sorting the FC construction rules - you no longer have to jump back and forth from one rule set to another to accomplish that.

As for your Citation undertray behind the rear wheels - if it is an FF, I believe that it never was offered with an undertray that was anywhere near 16 inches wide behind the rear axle, so if yours is wider, it most likely ain't a Citation piece.

It is a FC

And this whole thread has bought back good heated debate. A good thing as long as things stay about the topic and do not get personal.

[Wren]

I also refute the fact that the Radon has not been to any club events. It has been enterered in at least eight club events that I know of.

Which ones? I only know of the winternational and a driver's school.

If you want to buy your plane tickets, I will be happy enter a Radon in the FLR Glen Regional at Watkins Glen on Sep. 14-16, and you can bring your pre-filled protest forms with you.

I wil propose this as a compromise. Get a car to the runoffs and let the CRB/COA take a look at it. I feel confident that this rules proposal would easily be shot down by the BOD if the CRB/COA comes back and tells them that the car is legal per the 2012 GCR. This would be the most correct way to deal with this entire issue.

Yes, it certainly is your job. One Radon did better than most and the reaction is now protection.

As you may have noticed, this debate didn't start after the cars hit the track. One car finishing well in one race when all the other fast guys were sorting new cars is not sending everyone into fits.

Speaking of that car, why haven't we seen it since the big shunt at Lime Rock?

Since everyone knows I'm a moron, will someone tell me in small words what part of the proposal flips the switch to "Radon illegal for sure?" I'm not seeing it.

I'm going to guess it is related to the carbon panels. I don't know much about their panels or what information they included in their self protest. I suppose it could always be the addition of the word "frame" to the FC rules. Trying to draw a distinction between "frame" and "chassis" was a part of their initial self protest.

[John Robinson II]

The rule is no bodywork wider than 16" below the rear axle and aft of the rear tires. Who is running bodywork like that? Every undertray I see stops at the rear edge of the rear tires.

Wren,
Please re read rule D.4.c No Increase in bodywork Behind the centerline of the rear axle. My misconception was where the engine side covers radius down to cover undertay. But if it does not get any wider then it is legal. It is what I remember from Oseth's car not the fbs
My apologies to Steve and Richard. I should have known better.

John

[John Robinson II]

For all you techies does anything here effect a DB-6 either class?

Yes. Refer to measurement chart.

[R. Pare]

John:

What exactly in the chart?

[BWC54]

John:

What exactly in the chart?

For FF rear body work and exhaust length changes from 100 to 80 cm.

[Wren]

It is a FC

The 16" rule only applies to FF

For FF rear body work and exhaust length changes from 100 to 80 cm.

The stock DB-6 bodywork ends ~40cm behind the rear axle centerline. I think Jim has his as an FF, so unless he has added another 41cm of bodywork behind the stock bodywork, then this change would have no effect on him.

[Tom Valet]

The stock DB-6 bodywork ends ~40cm behind the rear axle centerline. I think Jim has his as an FF, so unless he has added another 41cm of bodywork behind the stock bodywork, then this change would have no effect on him.

Lots of DB-6 FFs have DB-1 tails on them, if that takes them over the limit do they have to buy new tails?

[Wren]

Lots of DB-6 FFs have DB-1 tails on them, if that takes them over the limit do they have to buy new tails?

I would be surprised if a DB-1 tail puts them over the limit. The 80cm rule is to the back of an FC's rear wing. I don't think I have seen any FF's that are 8" longer than an FC.

[Tom Valet]

Didnt realize 80 cm was to the back of the FC wing, good to know. Thanks Wren.

[R. Pare]

I would be surprised if a DB-1 tail puts them over the limit. The 80cm rule is to the back of an FC's rear wing. I don't think I have seen any FF's that are 8" longer than an FC.

The chart, at the time the DB1 was built, pertained to both classes - it actually originated from the British FF rules of the time - so I would be surprised if the Swift (as delivered) was longer than the 80cm in the chart.

[R. Pare]

Didn't some guys add an aluminum extension to the DB1 tail early on, and then had to take them off? I would assume that the extension went to the 100cm written limit, which, if I'm correct, would mean that the original DB1 tail was built to the 80cm limit stated in the chart.

[John Robinson II]

i just measured by porter db-1/6 tail and it is 34.5 from axle centerline to edge of the gurney. 80cm = 31.496"
The exhaust on my piper will have to be raised approx 3". is the measurement now to the top or bottom of the pipe?
John

[R. Pare]

The 20-60 cm height is the "box' that the pipe has to fit within - eg - at least 20cm to the bottom of the pipe, and no more than 60 to the top.

I'm not sure that this is really a change at all - a few years ago I remember that there was a change given for the exhaust height (probably the lowering from 30 to 20) and I think it was at the request of an FF competitor. Someone can correct me if my memory is off on the details.

I believe also that there was a max height reduction for FF and FC exhausts done sometime in the early 90's while the chart was known to pertain to both classes- the high outlets were seen to be nice cookie cutters for any driver that went into the back of another car.

[BWC54]

The exhaust on my piper will have to be raised approx 3". is the measurement now to the top or bottom of the pipe?
John

If they input the Kent and Honda engine rules into the new combined spec as they are currently written you might not have to raise the Piper exhaust because s.9 has a 10 cm min to the bottom of the pipe. I would like to know what they are going to do. I don't want to go through the time and expense to raise an exhaust that's legal now just because they combined the specs.

[R. Pare]

If there is an exhaust height spec in the Honda engine section of the rules, then it is the governing spec for cars with that engine and overrides the chart.

Just checked - yes, the Honda engine exhaust specs refer you to the Kent specs, and read as follows:

9. Exhaust Outlets
Exhaust outlets on cars registered after January 1, 1986 shall not
extend more than 60 cm (23.60”) behind the centerline of the
rear axle and shall be positioned between 10 cm (3.9”) and 60 cm
(23.6) from the ground, measured to the bottom of the exhaust
pipe.

So, as long as you meet those requirements, there isn't a problem.

[John Robinson II]

If they input the Kent and Honda engine rules into the new combined spec as they are currently written you might not have to raise the Piper exhaust because s.9 has a 10 cm min to the bottom of the pipe. I would like to know what they are going to do. I don't want to go through the time and expense to raise an exhaust that's legal now just because they combined the specs.

Isnt this exactly what they are trying to clear up? I see they did catch the Honda clutch issue.

Richard,
What about the top height of aerodynamic devices being equal to rim height? Is this something that gets addressed in the drawing and only refers to front wings? I think that is the intention, but ????
John

[BWC54]

If there is an exhaust height spec in the Honda engine section of the rules, then it is the governing spec for cars with that engine and overrides the chart.

There is currently one in the Kent engine spec and the Honda spec says the one in the Kent spec must be followed. The question is if they approve the consolidated spec are the going to change the minimum height in the Kent spec from 10 cm to 20 cm or leave it out of the Kent spec totally so that the table governs. If they are, then they should have included that rather than just have the title to the section.

[R. Pare]

Since they were not making any changes to the engine specifications, I suspect that they felt that there was no need to reprint them in the proposal.

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea in this particular case to add "For FC only" to the exhaust height specs in the chart - it certainly would eliminate the confusion, and eliminate the question as to which spec prevails.

the same goes for the rear overhang spec - if indeed some post-'86 cars have longer tails, the 100cm spec could be added back in where it originally was (or added to the chart as "FF Only"), and the 80cm length currently in the chart could be labeled "FC Only".

[R. Pare]

What about the top height of aerodynamic devices being equal to rim height? Is this something that gets addressed in the drawing and only refers to front wings? I think that is the intention, but ????
John

That spec would certainly refer to FC front wings, but not to the rear for 2 reasons - a rear wing is mandatory, and it is referenced in the drawing in "C - Maximum Height from the ground"

The spec "E" up until 91 or so was labeled something like "Max Front Bodywork Height", but got changed when VD started making their cars much higher (early '90's). I remember that Steve and I were pissed because we had gone to a lot of trouble trying to fit everything under a foot cover that low, and VD just ignored it and got the rule changed in their favor.

However, looking at that spec now, I think it could easily be dropped, or relabeled FC Front Wing since it was never intended to refer to anything aft of the front axle centerline if FF or FC.

Good catch, guys.