New FF/FC Construction Rules

[TimW]

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

This is clearly a change from the 2012 rules. The rule was clear, explicit and unbending to interpretation, the bottom of the tailpipe had to be within 60cm. With a DB6, Kent or Honda, the DB1 hytech header (designed under pre '86 rules) on a post '86 DB6 is illegal and has to be modified. Mine was angled down slightly to make the limit at the high end of the ride height range. On the Honda, HPD delivered it as the DB1 car was (their test mule) and the original Fit engine rules did not include the tailpipe height restriction so technically they delivered a legal part. Now, for 2012 DB6 - Honda owners had to angle them down to 60cm to the bottom of the pipe.

With this rewrite if your interpretation of the 'box' is accurate, then we have to angle them down another 2". Any height is fine, just freaken pick one because by the time I haul the car to a fabricator, buy the material, make a new support I've just spent a weekend's budget on chasing rules. Not cool. Frankly, the proposed rule is very open to interpretation the way it is written whereas the current rule is much clearer. Either state the box it must fit in with the new language or pick the bottom of the pipe as it was (or chose 65.08cm as the top of the box). Just don't leave that part of the proposal subject to varied interpretations.

[R. Pare]

No has changed at all - my interpretation of the 60cm being the upper top-of-the-pipe limit is incorrect since the ruiles still state bottom of the pipe. Shows how long it has been since I last looked at that part of the rules!

Sorry 'bout the confusion!

[John Robinson II]

Richard,
D.6.e the shaping of the lower surfaces to create Venturi tunnels is prohibited - isn't this a diffuser? Should this rule only apply to FF?

[R. Pare]

Venturi tunnels and diffusers are considered to be 2 different things, but are damned hard to define in words, so when the rules were revamped in 2010, they decided that a picture was the best way to get across what they were describing. With the picture missing in the proposal that is included in the CGR, it is less obvious as to what exactly they are talking about.

This is the same rule (with no changes) already in effect that covers both FF and FC since the 2010 rewrite.

[John Robinson II]

I asked because back in 07 when Coello was protested over having a "diffuser" the only wording was the Venturi tunnel. By the time the officials looked at his car the piece had been changed and had no sides, therefore it was not a tunnel and deemed legal. However it was stated that if it did indeed have sides it would be considered a tunnel. IMO, if a diffuser has sides, it is a tunnel. They might be shallow tunnels but they are tunnels
John

[R. Pare]

And therein lies some of the problem - many Stewards wouldn't know a diffuser from a screwdriver, and defining what is an isn't a diffuser verses a venturi tunnel to the uninitiated is almost impossible to do without still leaving way too many bad interpretations. Hence the picture. No, going by a picture isn't exactly perfect either, unfortunately, but at some point people need to start using a bit of common sense (another imperfect attribute as well!).

That is probably the one area of the rules where any wording used will not cover all contingencies, and therefore not please everyone.

[John Robinson II]

Richard,
That could be cleared up by not allowing undertrays on FF

[EYERACE]

While it's not got real side pods.....it's got sides............question and comment........would this mean Harvey Templeton's old FF would be illegal? Nothing should ever make that car illegal.

[BWC54]

While it's not got real side pods.....it's got sides............question and comment........would this mean Harvey Templeton's old FF would be illegal? Nothing should ever make that car illegal.

The pre 86 rules aren't changing.

[R. Pare]

While it's not got real side pods.....it's got sides............question and comment........would this mean Harvey Templeton's old FF would be illegal? Nothing should ever make that car illegal.

No - that car is governed by the pre-"86 rules.

And it is a waaaaaay too cool a car from that era to ever change anything in the original design!

[R. Pare]

I asked because back in 07 when Coello was protested over having a "diffuser" the only wording was the Venturi tunnel. By the time the officials looked at his car the piece had been changed and had no sides, therefore it was not a tunnel and deemed legal. However it was stated that if it did indeed have sides it would be considered a tunnel. IMO, if a diffuser has sides, it is a tunnel. They might be shallow tunnels but they are tunnels
John

Actually, for FF the rules banned both diffusers and venturi tunnels.

The problem was that without a definition, how the heck could anyone declare that a shape that fit the 1" rule was illegal? Without a definition, any Steward at any track could protest almost anything and probably justify it - which is exactly why LaRues undersides were perfectly flat - we had no clue as to where the limit might be. Steve and I told the CRB many times "Tell us what a diffuser is and we won't build it".

[Reddog]

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

FYI ... I have a typical VD wing and being mounted on a LD200 it is 81.25 cm from the axel centerline [plus of minus a row of a$$h@ll$$] sooo I dunno ... rule wise ...

[Purple Frog]

Dog,

Hate to tell you, there is no typical VD wing. Probably 60 combinations of supports, bottom planes, and side panels. Mixing and matching those elements can get you in trouble if you are not diligent in measuring. Just ask Chuck Moran sometime.

[Camadella]

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.

OK, here is your executive summary (there are actually more items, but these are definitely sufficient):

D.3.b - Specific language has been added (no other panels other than those specifically state are allowed) in order to disqualify our reinforcement panels.

D.3.d - Language added to specifically disallow our current interior panels.

D.3.f - Change in the definition of the word "bracket" - wording that disallows our current shock mounting arrangment.

D.4.f - Removed wording that formerly allowed the Radon cockpit interior panels, as well as our carbon radiator inlet ducts, where provide impact attenuation.

D.4.f - Definition of cockpit clearly redefined to disagree with the previous ruling of both the CRB and the CoA, which we have in writing.


There are actually more items - but the only reason that you would even think about putting this wording in there is because of the Radon - think about it - is anyone else affected by these rule changes?

One of the most interesting points is the redefinition of what's the inside of the cockpit. Apparently, those panels that your arms and legs touch (in the Radon) are no longer cockpit interior panels. Ummm - OK. Are they exterior panels? In a production based car, the door panels are outside the roll cage - so would you call those interior panels? I'll bet that almost anyone would, but these rules don't.

I really don't think that it's possible to argue that these rules were NOT written specifically to eliminate the Radon from competition in FC. I think that virtually any outsider, given all of the information available, would come to the same conclusion, and I think that a jury of non-racers would do the same. The fact that Radon, who again sold more FC cars than anyone this year, were not consulted in any way regarding the rules change further solidifies this thought.

Cheers,

Chris

[Reddog]

Dog,

Hate to tell you, there is no typical VD wing. Probably 60 combinations of supports, bottom planes, and side panels. Mixing and matching those elements can get you in trouble if you are not diligent in measuring. Just ask Chuck Moran sometime.

Frog this is Dog ... lol

Roger that ... but 100 cm is a lot, has anyone moved it that far back ... ... but if this rule holds [80cm] then a band saw and drill press used upon the brackets is all that is needed in my case.

[Purple Frog]

For the record. This weekend i spoke with both Mike Borland (Spectrum Race Cars), and Ralph Firman (RFR), and neither knew of the impending rule change. Ralph remembered the meeting at RA Runoffs in 2010. That was his last touch on the subject.

Borland was thinking of delivering a new FC car, possibly by WG in October. He is now on "hold" because of impending changes. Waiting to see.

Nathan says he was not contacted.

Of course we can't count Paul Rieffle (Metrik), because he was flying under the radar. But he didn't know there was an approaching re-write.

So the constructors that have delivered the most new cars in the past three years were not consulted.

[BWC54]

Frog this is Dog ... lol

Roger that ... but 100 cm is a lot, has anyone moved it that far back ... ... but if this rule holds [80cm] then a band saw and drill press used upon the brackets is all that is needed in my case.

If you are at 81 cm you're illegal now before the proposed rule change. The table for FC didn't change. The change from 100 cm to 80 cm applies to FF.

[starkejt]

None of these are rules yet. I can see why it feels like a conspiracy, though.

[Reddog]

If you are at 81 cm you're illegal now before the proposed rule change. The table for FC didn't change. The change from 100 cm to 80 cm applies to FF.

I think you meant legal ... Thanks ... I wasn't sure it didn't appy to both ... with or without wings ... still a wing back 100cm is way back ...

[BWC54]

I think you meant legal ... Thanks ... I wasn't sure it didn't appy to both ... with or without wings ... still a wing back 100cm is way back ...

No, I meant illegal. If you have a wing that measures 81.25 cm from the rear wheel centerline to the back of the wing it's illegal under the current rules.

[Reddog]

You are correct, for some reason I thought 100 cm was the correct number and not 80cm ... a senior moment ...

[Steve Demeter]

OK I am really dumb.

Can someone point out to me the part about bodywork not allowed to be wider than 16 inches at any point behind the rear wheels.

Have looked and looked.

Have not been able to find the diagram though.

[Dennis McCarthy]

Time for people who don't own FC
cars to leave the rules alone.....

[Wren]

OK I am really dumb.

Can someone point out to me the part about bodywork not allowed to be wider than 16 inches at any point behind the rear wheels.

Have looked and looked.

Have not been able to find the diagram though.

9.1.1.D.8.d page 257

It is an FF only rule and not in a diagram.

[Purple Frog]

Steve,
Shame on you! A long time FC competitor and you can't figure out the confusing state of two different class rules merged into one. Oh my.

You just provided clear evidence to prove one of my points.

[Steve Demeter]

Thanks Wren.

Froggie, in my old age some things are not so obvious as they once were.

[Purple Frog]

It's Friday night on a three day weekend ending the summer. If you have any money you are at a racetrack somewhere having fun.

I heard that the CRB may discuss this item next Tuesday in their conference call. If so, I haven't had time yet to compile a definitive letter.

I have been sitting the last few evenings trying to read this thing line by line, and compare it to the current regs. It is not an easy read. It takes a lot of time. The new proposal doesn't contain the omitted language marked out, so one has to do a lot of cross-checking. I am beginning to wonder how many on the FSRAC have actually studied this thing line by line, and asked, Why are we changing this line? Why are we omitting this line? From a lot of emails i've sent and received, I don't think the CRB has studied this thing line by line.

I am trying to be objective about this and not flame away on Apexspeed. I have questions, and so far i see new loopholes being created.

I'm most concerned that I can't get my thoughts all organized and submitted by next Tuesday.

I think Tom Valet made a good point. We don't really know why some of these changes are being made. And, Wren made some good points about writing rules in reponse to cars instead of ruling on cars based on the rules.

If i had to vote right now, just because i don't have enough analysis completed, I would have to say "hell no." ,or at least "wait a minute while I catch up and try to understand what you are trying to do."

Anyway guys, it may be time to send in something to the CRB and BOD, else they get on the phone Tuesday and think no one really cares or objects... and then they decide...let's go forward.

The only thing i am sure of at this juncture, If passed this is a rule change not just some clean-up or clarification.

YMMV but... if you don't vote, you can't bitch.

[Purple Frog]

Doing my research, and thus re-reading this thread, i did find pictures reflecting what JR2 was talking about.

Unfortunately, i don't have the "before" pictures of JR2's swift, only the "after hacksaw".

[Purple Frog]

I just know everyone is sitting on the edge of their chairs waiting for my review of this rule change.

I have spent way too much of this weekend going through it and the current GCR line-by-line. I am honestly wondering how many FC and FF owners have attempted this excercise? Does anyone really care?

I still don't believe we need this rewrite, things have been sweet the last couple of years on the rules front, but i fear the train has momentum.

I'm going to just skip all the stuff about the new rules for interior cockpit panels and preventing the "Son of Radon". I have my opinion and you don't care.


As to the rest of the proposed document:


1. D.2. Where it outlaws “metal matrix”, I think it would be clearer if it said “metal matrix composites”. My brief research says metal matrix is not clear enough, it’s sort of slang.

2. D.3.a. There is no specification of where the front bulkhead has to be in relation to the front axles/wheels. So one might have the front bulkhead moved back a foot or so from where we are used to seeing it. (think Kyle Connery [FONT=Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings]J[/FONT][/FONT] ) The front bulkhead could be back at the rear of the front wheel. Maybe possible because…
This has been added: This does not preclude a secondary forward bulkhead ahead of this “front” bulkhead).
So one might hang parts the front suspension off this secondary front bulkhead ahead of the front bulkhead. See where I’m going with this? Maybe F1 style noses on FF…

[FONT=Times New Roman]3. D.3.a. Stressed floor now doesn’t have to be flat. First time since 1986….[/FONT]

4. D.3.b. Says: No panels or other components other than those which are explicitly described within the “Preparation Rules” set forth herein may be attached to the chassis/frame.
See #5 below. I read all of “Preparation Rules”. No mention of radios, ECUs, St. Christopher statues, etc. So, those things can’t be attached to the chassis?

[FONT=Times New Roman]5. D.3.f A change in the definition of bracket, requiring that it be metal (rather than non-ferrous, which means any material other than steel or iron, including plastics and composites). Took out “may be non-ferrous” replaced with “shall be metal”.[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]f. Brackets [/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic]are [/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic]permitted [/FONT][FONT=Univers]for [/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic]the exclusive purpose [/FONT][FONT=Univers]of mounting components, such as the engine,[/FONT][FONT=Univers]transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels,[/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic].[/FONT]

This bracket thing could be a can of worms. I see cars with tons of nylon zip-ties, and Velcro holding all kinds of things to the chassis (Radios, ECUs, wiring, ) that are not engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, etc., etc. What is a bracket and what is not? If a plastic radio canister is zip-tied to a chassis rail, can it be protested?

[FONT=Times New Roman]6. Deleted D.4.f: They deleted this language: f. Carbon fiber is not permitted in any external bodywork. Cockpit interior panels, internal ductwork, air intakes and mirrors are not subject to this restriction. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]This change now outlaws the use of carbon for air ducts. A problem for some Tatuus, their radiator ducts are carbon. And, the Radon had really neat CF side attenuators built into its radiator ducts. Are Jeremy’s trick air ducts to his Fit air filter carbon?[/FONT]

7. D.6.g. What about barge boards less than 30” ahead of the rear rollhoop? Seems to open up possibility of all sorts of aero stuff aimed at the rear wheel. If you are banning barge boards, ban them. Don’t allow them to be sticking up above the diffusers in the rear of FC cars.

8. D.6.k. Kevlar is now allowed in wings? Why? (Kevlar is more expensive than Carbon, so it is not a cost saving deal) What does this buy us?

CRB phone conference may be tonight folks...

[Matt M.]

http://crbscca.com/

Get out and vote! The deal goes down tonight...

Not a single reference to the syndicate....... Very boring......

Frog has done a lot of research.... I commend his effort to try and thwart this thing....

Its disconcerting to read (my extreme paraphrase) - the car doesn't have the stock tail, put the stock tail on and the can will be legal...... It kills the "experimental" part of this class that makes it appealing - and the fact some "stock" parts don't exist anymore....now the box will be redefined and the hacksaws will come out.....? who knows what was forgotten this time and will come through next year......

I get the impression that everyone.....or "the syndicate"........is willing to "hide" behind the SCCA insurance policy....You are in denial if you think this wasn't to remove Radon. The rest of the story will go the way of Fran-am..... Most unfortunate.... There are a lot of players in this that have surfed through here and not commented at all.... No explanations other than Richards... Hopefully the board has weighed the decision properly....

[starkejt]

You are in denial if you think this wasn't to remove Radon.

I wonder if the Radon camp realizes how arrogant they seem with each cry of conspiracy when the car has yet to do a single thing as well as the "antiquated" Van Diemen.

[reidhazelton]

I wonder if the Radon camp realizes how arrogant they seem with each cry of conspiracy when the car has yet to do a single thing as well as the "antiquated" Van Diemen.

I don't get that vibe myself. They are just trying to protect their design, which, by some accounts is currently legal, and by the rules re-write would not be legal. I don't think one needs to be dominant before one can defend themselves and protect their interests. Weather or not it is "better" is irrelevant.

I think if any of us were in their position, we would do exactly the same. I know I would...albeit less diplomatically and far less "PC".

[Matt M.]

I wonder if the Radon camp realizes how arrogant they seem with each cry of conspiracy when the car has yet to do a single thing as well as the "antiquated" Van Diemen.

Two very good points Josh..... Well, one anyway.......

I suppose I'm linked with Radon with the work I've done - I haven't seen one since February..... But I stay in contact with a lot of people.... So - based on what I've heard, seen and read...... Yea - it is..... I'm interested observer at this point.... I only contacted Nathan last week - just to see if I can test the lights car.....Haven't talked to him since April - we have different political views so yea - its hard to be around him.....

People can vote however they feel...... The system is in place to let your thoughts be known..... And it certainly impacts more people than just Radon owners........

I think the car showed good potential with Fabio...... I would have been a second quicker and won each race - but at least he showed some promise as an average driver...

[starkejt]

What I mean is that it seems arrogant to suggest that a conspiracy formed to ban the car as if it were dominant and/or superior. Why bother to go through all that effort to get rid of a car that is no better or worse performance-wise than all the others, just different?

[reidhazelton]

What I mean is that it seems arrogant to suggest that a conspiracy formed to ban the car as if it were dominant and/or superior. Why bother to go through all that effort to get rid of a car that is no better or worse performance-wise than all the others, just different?

Ah, gotcha.

Maybe they are going through the effort because it is feared it will be dominate, or simply for the fact it is different...to different?

I get the vibe they feel it is superior, despite the results yet to prove so.

[starkejt]

I suppose I'm linked with Radon with the work I've done - I haven't seen one since February

I wasn't making a point about your association, just the whole "conspiracy" line that is tiring. Several people have pointed out where this proposal would/could make many different cars illegal. Frog even pointed out where it would make Citation FF air intakes illegal, which sort of torpedoes the theory that the Citation owners took over the FSRAC to change the rules in their favor. May I suggest that perhaps it is just a poorly written proposal? Just because someone fired off a shotgun when a scalpel was needed doesn't mean they were aiming it at your face.

[Matt M.]

What I mean is that it seems arrogant to suggest that a conspiracy formed to ban the car as if it were dominant and/or superior. Why bother to go through all that effort to get rid of a car that is no better or worse performance-wise than all the others, just different?

The most plain speak answer I can give - people don't like him......

I wont defend or condemn Nathan. I also don't want a pissing match to start over it....He is a very nice guy when you hang around him......And a brilliant mind - like Richard P..... Though Nathan will say he scored higher than richard on his SATs....

He has pissed a lot of people off..... I haven't seen derrick dong back here for a long time.... Thats like the tip of the iceberg of qualified people.....

As I have said before on here- the racing industry is a strange place - one week it looks like a monkey cage in heat where anything goes - the next week two or three of them are sharing bananas figuring out how they can make more bananas....... That is not to say that they are all monkeys - next thing you know they will throwing $hit at me....... It's a hobby for just about all of us.... These guys try to make a living from it - so it seems like anything goes....it's a bit foreign....

I'm done here... As king of apex mountain, I'm very busy......... Get out and vote - I have to get to work!

[jimh3063]

Folks, we are racing our cars in the SCCA. I think the second C is for the word club.
From Webster.

an association of persons for some common object usually jointly supported and meeting periodically; also : a group identified by some common characteristic.

The rule changes in question is supposed to be a representation of the "association of persons for some common object usually jointly supported and meeting periodically" want as a group to manage our CLUB's rules. To this day I'm trying to figure out what MAJORITY of our CLUB is asking for these mods to the rules. We all pay our dues and we use the SCCA as a governing body. This is done to make our sport/hobby better and safer while maintaining a rule base that allows most cars of the same vintage to be competitive. The rule change is squarely aimed at a few. You don't need a Doctorate to figure it out.

If we are truly a Club as defined by Websters definition, why are the people submitting the rules mod not coming out in the pubic forum and saying that they are the submitters of the changes. We should know who they are and what their motivations are. We then as a Club, defined by Webster should vote on it. We all have an SCCA membership number. That number should be able to allow the one racer one vote method of resolving as a group which rules we implement for the Club.

What is going on now needs to be fully transparent and done in the light of of day.
We all as a group should know who is submitting the rules change request and why.
We then as a group should vote on it. Why is this all being done in the dark. Where are the meeting minutes from all Board meetings. Where is the costs, benefit review. This whole thing bring to light what I feel needs to be a change in the entire process.

Lets as a group, review requests, know who is submitting them, know why they are being submitted, have a clear understanding of the benefits of the rule changes and then vote on them as a group. Doesn't seem like a crazy idea to me.

Too much of this whole process has been done under the cloak of darkness. We as a CLUB need transparency. We need to make sure that what gets done to the rules of the CLUB are done for the right purpose and actually benefit the club and class as a whole.

My 2 cents,
Jimmy

[Matt M.]

I wasn't making a point about your association, just the whole "conspiracy" line that is tiring. Several people have pointed out where this proposal would/could make many different cars illegal. Frog even pointed out where it would make Citation FF air intakes illegal, which sort of torpedoes the theory that the Citation owners took over the FSRAC to change the rules in their favor. May I suggest that perhaps it is just a poorly written proposal? Just because someone fired off a shotgun when a scalpel was needed doesn't mean they were aiming it at your face.

Cut it out! I have to get to work!! Go upstairs and tell mom to make you breakfast.....

As I just said - I think it would naive to think its just one manufacturer.....

Cast your vote..... We'll see where it lands......

[starkejt]

Cut it out! I have to get to work!! Go upstairs and tell mom to make you breakfast.....

As I just said - I think it would naive to think its just one manufacturer.....

Cast your vote..... We'll see where it lands......

I have been in my office at work for an hour and a half. I'm glad you had the chance to sleep in.

There is one small phrase in the proposal that I support that has not been mentioned anywhere here that I have seen.

I don't have any reason to dislike Nathan, and I doubt people hate him for his SAT score. If that were the case, then why does everyone like me so much?