Staudacher FB Development (was: Engine failures)

[S Lathrop]

my point was about the shape being a movable aero device - the material issue is a separate conversation. My thought is that if the shape is not legal then it would not matter what material it is made of and therefore aero tube would be illegal, hell it's even called aero tube!

I'm not certain what the issue is here. The allowable shape of the suspension tubes was fought out decades ago. If it was symmetrical then the shape was not an issue. But you could not make covers for suspension components.

I doubt that anyone would say anything about carbon fiber brake line protective covers either. Maybe in this case, Jon needs to pass a brake line through the wood and all will be good.

Marty; the suspended weight is probably closer to 185# at each front corner. 40# would be a guess at the un-sprung weight. My point was that the load to design around is closer to 700# than 300#.

[Northwind]

"I doubt that anyone would say anything about carbon fiber brake line protective covers either. Maybe in this case, Jon needs to pass a brake line through the wood and all will be good."


Carbon fiber is not to be used anywhere licked by the air stream except for front and rear crash attenuators. That is the way I interpret the rules. Maybe I'm wrong, but brake line covers on the suspension would clearly be licked by the air.

[S Lathrop]

"I doubt that anyone would say anything about carbon fiber brake line protective covers either. Maybe in this case, Jon needs to pass a brake line through the wood and all will be good."


Carbon fiber is not to be used anywhere licked by the air stream except for front and rear crash attenuators. That is the way I interpret the rules. Maybe I'm wrong, but brake line covers on the suspension would clearly be licked by the air.

I guess that shoots that down.

Are aluminum brake line covers a part of the suspension?

[Jnovak]

I guess that shoots that down.

Are aluminum brake line covers a part of the suspension?

In my opinion, NO. The are protection for the brake lines. Taking them off has zero impact on the suspension.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[JONKATHY]

Steve,
My calculations are per wheel with a static load of 300# and determine a vertical load of 1577# without bump resistance and 2137# with bump resistance of 100# at the damper (push rod load/1.67)wheel travel of 1.5". Well over a 100% margin.
It is important to note that the push rod is the weak link.
As always I could be wrong.
I appreciate your interest.
Jon

[Purple Frog]

They are brake line attenuators.

[JONKATHY]

I really wanted to wrap the wood in carbon and clear coat it, but I knew that would not fly for the reason Dan stated. Would have been cool.
Better to look fast than be fast?
Jon

[Purple Frog]

Interesting issue. Just spent an hour reading the Feb 2013 FB rules. As a national scrutineer, my initial interpretation would be that wood, aluminum, or CF fairings on the wishbones to protect brake lines would be illegal in FB. They can't be bodywork. They can't be aero devices because they move, etc. They appear to be part of the suspension, and one of those parts of the suspension that is not excluded from being ferrous or steel. So... therefore they would be illegal.

Completely a shame. i like them myself, and they may even serve a safety purpose. But, i fear if faced with a protest, i would have to tell the SOMs thay are illegal.

OBTW, i once saw a set made out of very thin steel. Held on with plastic tiewraps. The discussion was whether the tiewraps were legal.

A thought....Maybe someone should submit a request to make brake line covers on suspension open as long as they are symetrical top and bottom. Use the same language that defines allowable aero tube.

With an established committee working on a revamp of part of the FB rules, maybe they could incorporate a change into the 2014 rules.

[Northwind]

Frog,

Get a stronger magnet.

[R. Pare]

GCR FCS G.2.G. It is not permitted to construct any suspension member in the
form of an asymmetrical airfoil or to incorporate a spoiler in the
construction of any suspension member. Symmetrical streamlining
of suspension members is permitted.

Pretty unique and cool means of streamlining the tubes!

Froggie: There is an old method of determining what is or isn't suspension (and is effectively exactly what most suspension rules state) - if you remove the component in question and the suspension collapses, then the component is definitely suspension. In the case of these fairings, if you remove them, the suspension won't collapse, so they are therefore not suspension.

The question remains then whether the rule about "symmetrical streamlining of suspension members" is referring strictly to the suspension member itself, or to add-ons. The answer to that, I don't know, but my opinion is that they should be considered legal - no one that I know of would even blink if they were made out of alu sheet (and aluminium is also not allowed as an a-arm material in the Suspension section of the rules, nor are these fairings among the items listed as being allowed to be made from alu or mag).

[starkejt]

I have seen multiple RFR FBs with carbon brake line fairings. In fact, I assumed they all came that way, and nobody cared enough to complain.

[Northwind]

I have seen multiple RFR FBs with carbon brake line fairings. In fact, I assumed they all came that way, and nobody cared enough to complain.

Well, they did have to change the 1" front side pod underside transition too.

[starkejt]

Well, if we have established carbon fiber fairings on suspension are illegal, then wood is also illegal. Wood is composed of carbon-based cellulose fibers and therefore is a type of carbon fiber. All materials in the universe, by definition, are either carbon fiber or non carbon fiber.

[formulasuper]

"All materials in the universe, by definition, are either carbon fiber or non carbon fiber."
Now there's a fact.

[starkejt]

Didn't see the other thread?

[Purple Frog]

Richard,
I do like them.
Last night i told the world my interpretation of how the GCR looks. Help me here...

If by your definition they are not suspension, then what are they?
How would you rule if faced with a protest? What would be the section of the GCR-FB that would make them legal?

[glenn cooper]

this much hand wringing and teeth gnashing since, since... ummmmmmmm, since, uhhhhhh,
(Here it co-ooooooooooooomes) "Assisted Shifting"!

[Mike Devins]

John you seem so nice but you really are a trouble maker.

ahahahahhaah - he said wood
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instanc...x/26315179.jpg

[R. Pare]

Help me here...

If by your definition they are not suspension, then what are they?
How would you rule if faced with a protest? What would be the section of the GCR-FB that would make them legal?

Good question, and unfortunately I do not have an iron-clad answer.

Q : What are they?

A: They are not suspension per the "support" method I outlined. Normally we would just label them as a "fairing". However, while the rules (as I posted previously) allow the suspension arms to be "streamlined", it does not say that you can use fairings to perform that streamlining (the FF/FC rules do state specifically that fairings are allowed, but the FB rules make no mention anywhere).

So, the question then becomes this: Does the allowance for "streamlining" the suspension members allow for streamlining via add-on pieces?

If I were to go strictly by what the GCR says in writing, then NO - the FB rules also state that "all allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions". Therefore, since add-on fairings are not mentioned in the FB rules, you would have no choice but to declare them to be an addition that is not "as stated herein", and therefore illegal.

However, if I were to be generous and take into account the history of their use in other classes, including the classes on which these rules were based, I would think that the rule authors wanted to allow them , and thought that the "streamlining" allowance was adequate ( that pesky "intent" that so many want to dismiss ), and would declare them a legal means of "streamlining" but would ask for the CRB to clarify for fairings in to the rules under "errors and omissions".

I would also ask that a definition of "bodywork" be added in to the FB rules (like we did in the FF/FC rewrite), so as to override the Glossary definition and authority - in fact, I would ask the new rules committee to take a close look at the FF/FC rewrite and do the same for FB, using the same language, with modification to state whatever changes are FB-specific.

[R. Pare]

"I doubt that anyone would say anything about carbon fiber brake line protective covers either. Maybe in this case, Jon needs to pass a brake line through the wood and all will be good."


Carbon fiber is not to be used anywhere licked by the air stream except for front and rear crash attenuators. That is the way I interpret the rules. Maybe I'm wrong, but brake line covers on the suspension would clearly be licked by the air.

That ban on CF in external panels is in the Bodywork rules, and unless these fairings are somehow determined to be "bodywork", the rule would have no bearing on them - the "Chassis" rules, where the "streamlining" allowance is stated, only state that CF is banned in any structural use, but does not state anything about its use in any components otherwise described in that rule section.

[Purple Frog]

Richard wrote: "Therefore, since add-on fairings are not mentioned in the FB rules, you would have no choice but to declare them to be an addition that is not "as stated herein", and therefore illegal."

So i think we both agree on these points:

1. We like their use.
2. They should be allowed.
3. It should be cleared up in the FB section of the GCR.



Without clarification, there could be a situation where a protest could occur. We don't need that.

Since there currently is a highly respected sitting committee reviewing parts of the current FB rules (specifically engines), I think someone should write the CRB with a proposal to fix this. I expect it would get fixed fairly rapidly.

[iamuwere]

Well, that was hashed out expeditiously.

[Purple Frog]

Since April 3, 2001 i have always thought the great value of Apexspeed is the quick availability of knowledgable resources to expediate the solution to problems racers might have that impead their having fun.

We appreciate the likes of DaveW, Richard, Steve, Dustin, and many others that sign on and lend their expertise.

Thanks Doug and Kim!

[R. Pare]

Interesting.

In reviewing the FF/FC rules (both the old rules as well as the new), it seems that adding fairings to suspension arms has some limits there as well that we have all overlooked over the years:

According to the 2013 rules for FF/FC (and this is the same wording as the older rules):

It is not permitted to attach spoilers, fairings or other devices that may exert downforce to the movable suspension members. If the suspension member is of streamline or airfoil cross section, it shall be symmetrical about its horizontal axis. Brake lines may be attached to suspension members. Brake lines may be enclosed in a symmetrical fairing.

In the older rules, some additional words in the Suspension section also state some material restrictions:

All components that are not defined as chassis/frame or suspension are unrestricted, unless otherwise restricted by these rules or the GCR. Titanium is prohibited. Carbon fiber is prohibited

These would lead me to believe that while you were/are allowed to fair in a suspension arm that has a brake line attached to it, you cannot do so to an arm that does not.

Further, assuming that fairings are controlled in the Suspension rules section (which seems to be the case), but are not classified as a suspension component, you are therefore not allowed to make such brake line fairings from CF (or Ti).

In the current (2013) rules, the general prohibition against CF and other composites (as stated in "B.2. General Restrictions", would rule against CF as a fairing material for FF and FC since there is not a specific allowance given.

Conclusion: For FF and FC, it looks like adding a fairing to a-arms has been allowed solely as a means of covering over a brake line, and cannot be constructed from composites such as CF.

If history is a valid indicator, it looks then like add-on fairings on any arms that do not have a brake line attached to them is not permitted.. If it is desired to allow such practice in FB, I would suggest that someone submit a request to the CRB to get it officially into the rules.

In the meantime, Jon, I wouldn't sweat it one bit unless such a request gets turned down.

[JONKATHY]

Does anyone care to suggest wording for a CRB request?
Or how to approach the FB rules committee?
Thanks.
Jon

[R. Pare]

I've thought about this a bit today, and frankly am having a hard time with simple wording to allow fairings on both arms that could not be morphed into allowing one big fairing that encapsulates the entire a-arm.

The best I can come up with so far goes something like this;

Streamlining of individual a-arm members (legs) via add-on fairings is permitted. Such fairings may be constructed by any material allowed as stated in the Suspension and Bodywork rules. Such streamlined shaping must be symmetrical about its horizontal axis.

Without going back to look at those 2 sections right now, I believe that at least steel, alu, mag, fiberglass, CF, and kevlar would be allowed, but am not sure about wood.

The allowance could also be worded to state specifically what materials are allowed, which could indeed include wood.

[Daryl DeArman]

I've thought about this a bit today, and frankly am having a hard time with simple wording to allow fairings on both arms that could not be morphed into allowing one big fairing that encapsulates the entire a-arm.

The best I can come up with so far goes something like this;

Streamlining of individual a-arm members (legs) via add-on fairings is permitted. Such fairings may be constructed by any material allowed as stated in the Suspension and Bodywork rules. Such streamlined shaping must be symmetrical about its horizontal axis.

How would the above prevent somebody from "streamlining" the leading leg all the way back to the leading edge of the trailing leg and then streamlining the trailing leg from it's leading edge rearward?

And, no I can't come up with better wording to prevent what you are trying to prevent without disallowing streamlining entirely.

[Marshall Mauney]

How would the above prevent somebody from "streamlining" the leading leg all the way back to the leading edge of the trailing leg and then streamlining the trailing leg from it's leading edge rearward?

And, no I can't come up with better wording to prevent what you are trying to prevent without disallowing streamlining entirely.

You could put a maximum limit on the ratio of length to width of any streamlined member.

[R. Pare]

That's why I used the word "individual" - the intent is to mean that you can streamline each leg individually, but not both legs as a whole.

Not positive, however, that it cannot be legitimately interpreted differently.

[RussMcB]

How would the above prevent somebody from "streamlining" the leading leg all the way back to the leading edge of the trailing leg and then streamlining the trailing leg from it's leading edge rearward?

I wonder, would that really be a problem if someone did? I mean, rocker arms are kinda like that.

[JONKATHY]

What Russ said.
Jon

[JONKATHY]

And the anti intrusion aspect would be great.
Jon

[Purple Frog]

Maybe just say that the tech inspector must be able to place his foot between the two legs of each A-arm.

In a contorted sort of way, i could imagine a "webbed" A arm, with enough anti-dive dialed in, creating downforce. Just driving down the super slab with my hand out the window i can create lift or not. Imagine a web 6 times bigger than your hand going 100 mph.

[iamuwere]

Is there anything from stopping one giant flat a-arm currently if it was done in very thin steel?

[Purple Frog]

Sounds legal to me. You need to move to New Hampshire.

[JONKATHY]

Ready for paint but too cold. Trailer is next.

[2BWise]

Can't wait to see this thing in person. Do you have any idea when it'll first run?

[Nicholas Belling]

beautiful !!!

[provamo]

who needs paint? that thing is gorgeous..........plus paint is just dead weight

[ghickman]

I don't see any split lines in the body so I can only assume to service the car the entire body comes off?

Seems like I remember there were a few FF in the late 70's or early 80's that took this approach. Always seemed like a PITA to do but maybe not?