Please explain .... Euro Sidepod & Width Rule Change

[ken bouq]

Beasley's price is almost 3 g for one unpainted set of narrow pods.
He hasn't made any yet but will make to order..

Ben does have all the STOCK fiberglass pieces for the Mygale...

[problemchild]

Yes, and then you have to modify the internals, ductwork, shrouding, hangars. There is labor involved. As a hobbiest, if Reid wants to suck glass in his garage, and do all the work himself with $500 worth of materials, then he can do it for well under $5K. I know how much time and money I spent doing the two cars I did. I have my own jigs, and would love the competitive edge it would give my cars, but I need to find a way to pay for it. Raising rental prices by $850 per event just cannot happen.

It really sucks that the people that ignored the rule process to make victims of a dozen racers, are offended that people are angry, dismissing "247 days as suddenly?", and telling the victims they must start the charade over by writing a letter. As we all know, 247 days is but a moment in the SCCA process. I was working about 12+ hours per day for about 230 of those days through race season, BTW. I, like most racers, expect SCCA to bring issues that will effect me, to some level of discussion and input before sneaking them through. All that needs to be done as "admit we made a mistake", and rescind the rule. Comparing this issue to the spec tire issue is a great example ..... if you had made Goodyear rain tires the dry spec tire, in private, without racer input ...... and then made racers write letters to select a proper dry spec tire ..... And how many years did it take to get that spec tire rule in place? ....... And about 30 years late!

I don't want anybody, whether SCCA officials, racers, volunteers, mechanics, or bodyshop men to waste another minute on this stupid issue. Writing letters just starts another cycle of crap, pi$$ing more people off and disenfranchising more people. This rule change was done behind closed doors. It should be fixed by the same people behind those same closed doors.

And thank you to Apexspeed for giving this issue a voice that it never had.

[Steve Bamford]

Can I have someone explain to me how a few or multiple letters change this rule? There have been several posts & letters for requests to change rules that turn into a "what do you think" asking the membership for input before changing rules...or on other occasions the CRB asks for data & tests to be done by the individuals requesting the rule changes. So was the same process followed asking for confirmation of the increased down force or whatever reason for the justification to add weight to these cars?

[dc]

OK, instead of responding to the myriad alerts I have received on this thread, I decided to respond here directly, to both Greg and those who flagged some of the posts here.



Greg, there are many valid points that you have made about the changes in the FF rules. On the surface, there seems to be something not well explained by the SCCA CRB in the reasoning behind the changes. I would likely have an issue with them, as well, but would most certainly take it up directly with the CRB, while also trying to maintain a civil discussion on ApexSpeed about the subject. Calling for the person(s) who made this decision "to be shot" is more that completely out-of-bounds, and it thoroughly violates ApexSpeed rules. First warning, last warning. This will not be tolerated at all. Your expulsion from ApexSpeed if anything even closely resembling a remark like that will also not be met with any explanation to you.

I'm curious, though, as others are. You started this thread 8 months after the rule was announced, and only a day after bumping your own classified thread for your (narrow sidepod) Mygale FF that you have had for sale for 2 years. I don't understand the season-long delay or the pot-calling-the-kettle-black conflict of interests, as well. You had the time to post on the forums but not time to contact the CRB or any of it's members directly for answers?

Again, last warning. Ad hoc attacks on the CRB or anyone else will not be tolerated. And really, do you think attacking the people that came up with the rule change is going to get you any favors in getting it rescinded?




And to the past and current members of the CRB that have voiced concern over Greg's behavior on this thread, I completely agree with your assessment of the abrasiveness of this thread. But you also aren't openly answering any of his questions or concerns, either. I do agree with Greg about the transparency of this rule (or lack of) and would like to see open and honest dialogue for a legitimate complaint from a racer who is directly affected by what seemingly is an arbitrary change well into the season.

Talk about it here, take it offline, pick up the phone and talk—it doesn't matter to me, but it seems as though this could be explained away pretty easily without so much hostility on ApexSpeed. It makes everyone look bad.



Doug

[John LaRue]

Can I have someone explain to me how a few or multiple letters change this rule? There have been several posts & letters for requests to change rules that turn into a "what do you think" asking the membership for input before changing rules...or on other occasions the CRB asks for data & tests to be done by the individuals requesting the rule changes. So was the same process followed asking for confirmation of the increased down force or whatever reason for the justification to add weight to these cars?

The issue was brought up within the FSRAC under letter number 21864 on 4/3/2017. The letter provided:

It was originally intended that FF cars meet the British FF rules that include wider sidepods/bodywork than allowed in our spec, be required to keep the sidepods raised from the floor of the car 1" to eliminate any aero advantage. At the time it was believed the 2010 British rules required this. It has come to our attention that there are cars not meeting this requirement and searching through the rules we cannot find this in either the British rules or our rules.

The FSRAC recommends a 25# weight adjustment to cars meeting the Brittish FF spec under the Alterntaive Vehicle Allowance table and a requirement that all FF cars meet the SCCA spec for 2018.

The FSRAC made the above recommendation to the CRB which was thereafter approved. Notice was published in the May 2017 Fastracks. According to my notes the catalyst for this was due to the cars not meeting the spec which was intended when the cars were brought into the class under a spec line (see above commentary).

FYI not every change goes through a process where input of the membership is sought (WDYT). In fact, the CRB has been notified that such a process is over utilized and should be used sparingly in the future. It is up to the membership to watch the Fastracks publications and to write letters to express concerns or objections. (PITA yes, but that is part of the sport) I was personally approached by several FF competitors after this was published who asked questions. I don't believe that any letters or formal objections were made after publication. Further, I am not aware of any issues in tech after this change was implemented.

This is a real issue that the FSRAC has been forced to deal with because these cars do not meet the existing formula or rule set for SCCA FF. These are spec line cars that were brought into the class based on performance and adjustments to maintain a balance of performance (BOP) is common where cars are running to different rule sets. (Consider the routine adjustments like this that are made in the Touring and Production classes.) If you do not like the rule or have a better idea then send in a letter; it is a pretty easy process. Like it or not that is how the SCCA rules system works. Complaints on APEX unfortunately don't register.

I hope that this helps. Feel free to call or email me directly if you wish (you guys all have my contact information)- there are no hidden agenda's the FSRAC and CRB are just trying to make things work for everyone.

John

[rick payne_75]

Greg didn't you have knowledge of the weight rule for cars with wider pods before you purchased your 2 new (to you) cars? There are other options out there for newer chassis. I seem to remember having a conversation with you about how much you liked the Piper DF5! They don't need pod modifications to run at 1110 lbs. It's pretty common knowledge that you are an avid FRP supporter. So why not just run these cars in FRP events? Rick Payne

[John LaRue]

OK, instead of responding to the myriad alerts I have received on this thread, I decided to respond here directly, to both Greg and those who flagged some of the posts here.



Greg, there are many valid points that you have made about the changes in the FF rules. On the surface, there seems to be something not well explained by the SCCA CRB in the reasoning behind the changes. I would likely have an issue with them, as well, but would most certainly take it up directly with the CRB, while also trying to maintain a civil discussion on ApexSpeed about the subject. Calling for the person(s) who made this decision "to be shot" is more that completely out-of-bounds, and it thoroughly violates ApexSpeed rules. First warning, last warning. This will not be tolerated at all. Your expulsion from ApexSpeed if anything even closely resembling a remark like that will also not be met with any explanation to you.

I'm curious, though, as others are. You started this thread 8 months after the rule was announced, and only a day after bumping your own classified thread for your (narrow sidepod) Mygale FF that you have had for sale for 2 years. I don't understand the season-long delay or the pot-calling-the-kettle-black conflict of interests, as well. You had the time to post on the forums but not time to contact the CRB or any of it's members directly for answers?

Again, last warning. Ad hoc attacks on the CRB or anyone else will not be tolerated. And really, do you think attacking the people that came up with the rule change is going to get you any favors in getting it rescinded?




And to the past and current members of the CRB that have voiced concern over Greg's behavior on this thread, I completely agree with your assessment of the abrasiveness of this thread. But you also aren't openly answering any of his questions or concerns, either. I do agree with Greg about the transparency of this rule (or lack of) and would like to see open and honest dialogue for a legitimate complaint from a racer who is directly affected by what seemingly is an arbitrary change well into the season.

Talk about it here, take it offline, pick up the phone and talk—it doesn't matter to me, but it seems as though this could be explained away pretty easily without so much hostility on ApexSpeed. It makes everyone look bad.



Doug

Doug - FWIW anyone can pick up a phone and call a member of the FSRAC or CRB at anytime to discuss this or any issue. Just because one of the members of these groups does not jump in and provide a response on your forum does not mean that there is an issue with transparency in the process or that there is some back room deal happening. We are all volunteers and have other obligations and things we do besides monitoring unofficial forums. If you or anyone else have an issue then send an email or make a call. Answers are really pretty easy to come by. As we all know, so many times these forum discussions derail and are void of logical discourse; we will not be baited into those messes. I hope that the moderators will strive to keep that from happening here. I will be the first to admit that not everything the club does is correct, but the system and SCCA as a whole would be better served by people offering assistance or solutions rather than negative commentary that simply makes the organization and formula car racers as a whole look bad. If you aren't part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

Regards,

John

[dc]

Just because one of the members of these groups does not jump in and provide a response on your forum does not mean that there is an issue with transparency in the process or that there is some back room deal happening.

Thanks John, I certainly can understand that point of view. But, when past and current decision-makers are posting in this thread and also complaining to me in PMs about the original poster's tone, it strikes me as counter-productive. Either answer his concerns here out in the open or ignore him. You (not you, specifically) can't have it both ways.

And I do personally appreciate your public response and explanation of the rule amendment. Greg should be pursuing the proper channels to deal with this if he has a complaint, I agree.




I don't have a dog in this hunt, at all, and don't really care one way or the other. I would prefer if my forum members avoid calling for SCCA volunteers to be shot, though. Leaves stains in the lime green carpeting.

[Steve Bamford]

The issue was brought up within the FSRAC under letter number 21864 on 4/3/2017. The letter provided:

It was originally intended that FF cars meet the British FF rules that include wider sidepods/bodywork than allowed in our spec, be required to keep the sidepods raised from the floor of the car 1" to eliminate any aero advantage. At the time it was believed the 2010 British rules required this. It has come to our attention that there are cars not meeting this requirement and searching through the rules we cannot find this in either the British rules or our rules.

The FSRAC recommends a 25# weight adjustment to cars meeting the Brittish FF spec under the Alterntaive Vehicle Allowance table and a requirement that all FF cars meet the SCCA spec for 2018.

The FSRAC made the above recommendation to the CRB which was thereafter approved. Notice was published in the May 2017 Fastracks. According to my notes the catalyst for this was due to the cars not meeting the spec which was intended when the cars were brought into the class under a spec line (see above commentary).

FYI not every change goes through a process where input of the membership is sought (WDYT). In fact, the CRB has been notified that such a process is over utilized and should be used sparingly in the future. It is up to the membership to watch the Fastracks publications and to write letters to express concerns or objections. (PITA yes, but that is part of the sport) I was personally approached by several FF competitors after this was published who asked questions. I don't believe that any letters or formal objections were made after publication. Further, I am not aware of any issues in tech after this change was implemented.

This is a real issue that the FSRAC has been forced to deal with because these cars do not meet the existing formula or rule set for SCCA FF. These are spec line cars that were brought into the class based on performance and adjustments to maintain a balance of performance (BOP) is common where cars are running to different rule sets. (Consider the routine adjustments like this that are made in the Touring and Production classes.) If you do not like the rule or have a better idea then send in a letter; it is a pretty easy process. Like it or not that is how the SCCA rules system works. Complaints on APEX unfortunately don't register.

I hope that this helps. Feel free to call or email me directly if you wish (you guys all have my contact information)- there are no hidden agenda's the FSRAC and CRB are just trying to make things work for everyone.

John

Thanks for your response John. I understand how FSRAC May have been asked about this now but I do not know how the recommendation came about or how the CRB decided upon it.

The performance adjustments to bring these cars in line or BOP is completely wrong IMO. The wider side pods are a performance disadvantage compared with what the narrower side pods. Did anyone happen to check the perfance of the Mygales with the narrower pods vs the wider pods? I wasnt contacted for info & are one of the few that have run the car with both. I can tell you once cooling issues were dealt with the narrower side pods were an advantage. Also there is a weight savings by narrower pods so now the kids can place that weight right where they want it instead of having it around their ears.

So the BOP to add a weight penalty isn’t the correct thing to do. You need to take out all the 14-21 year olds out of these cars & put in 40 plus year olds & you will have proper performance adjustment.

i’ll write my letter later today.

[R. Pare]

Dumb set of questions here:

1 - Is there any rule in the club against converting these Brit-spec cars to narrow sidepods, assuming that they are otherwise in compliance with the rest of the SCCA FF specs?

2 - Do the cars that are being complained about comply with the rest of the Club FF specs?


If there is no rule against a narrow-sidepods conversion, AND the cars are in proper SCCA spec compliance otherwise, I fail to see what the complaint is against them - if they are SCCA spec-compliant cars, they are not subject to the Brit-spec added weight rule.

What am I missing here?

[DaveW]

Dumb set of questions here:

1 - Is there any rule in the club against converting these Brit-spec cars to narrow sidepods, assuming that they are otherwise in compliance with the rest of the SCCA FF specs?

2 - Do the cars that are being complained about comply with the rest of the Club FF specs?


If there is no rule against a narrow-sidepods conversion, AND the cars are in proper SCCA spec compliance otherwise, I fail to see what the complaint is against them - if they are SCCA spec-compliant cars, they are not subject to the Brit-spec added weight rule.

What am I missing here?

The fact that they HAD to be converted at large expense of time and $$$. The question is why couldn't they have (or can't they now) run as they were, at no added cost, since the wide sidepods have turned out to be a disadvantage?

[Steve Bamford]

Dumb set of questions here:

1 - Is there any rule in the club against converting these Brit-spec cars to narrow sidepods, assuming that they are otherwise in compliance with the rest of the SCCA FF specs?

2 - Do the cars that are being complained about comply with the rest of the Club FF specs?


If there is no rule against a narrow-sidepods conversion, AND the cars are in proper SCCA spec compliance otherwise, I fail to see what the complaint is against them - if they are SCCA spec-compliant cars, they are not subject to the Brit-spec added weight rule.

What am I missing here?

no rule against converting, it is the costs to do so that is not taken into consideration by many. They were legal in SCCA at 1100 lbs then changed mid last year due to letters apparently. Yes the cars meet spec otherwise as far as I understand.

What has has happened will cost drivers thousand of dollars or add 25 more lbs weight which none of them wish to do. Mygale is the most popular “New” F1600 so more of these cars are out there that now will cost owners extra money to run them in SCCA without feeling they are being penilized.

[jharvey]

It's not as expensive as converting a car from a Ford to a Honda power unit, and that is a much more measurable advantage than 25 pounds. If weight was that critical, I'd think you'd see Cortina engines on the grids at 50 pounds lighter, and you don't.

Don't get me wrong, weight is important, but few drivers are actually as talented as they think they are.

[Steve Bamford]

It's not as expensive as converting a car from a Ford to a Honda power unit, and that is a much more measurable advantage than 25 pounds. If weight was that critical, I'd think you'd see Cortina engines on the grids at 50 pounds lighter, and you don't.

Don't get me wrong, weight is important, but few drivers are actually as talented as they think they are.

So shouldn’t the 25 lbs extra apply to all Honda’s based on what you are saying? This isn’t a Honda vs Kent rule though so it isn’t relevant. We can start a new thread on that one or pull up many of the old ones. I hear what you are saying but doesn’t apply here. Also SCCA is taking away cars that were legal at one point with a rule change. Yes they can still run but at an increased disadvantage.

[jharvey]

So shouldn’t the 25 lbs extra apply to all Honda’s?

Yes, or you can run a Ford with no penalty. People are complaining about this expense, but spent 3 times that much putting a Honda in the back.

This seems like all rules go. A few people push something through, a bunch of people get upset, and then life moves on. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you must convert the car, just like you don't have to convert to a Honda. But there is a penalty if you do not.

[Steve Bamford]

Yes, or you can run a Ford with no penalty. People are complaining about this expense, but spent 3 times that much putting a Honda in the back.

This seems like all rules go. A few people push something through, a bunch of people get upset, and then life moves on. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you must convert the car, just like you don't have to convert to a Honda. But there is a penalty if you do not.

Sorry you missed the point. I’m not trying to argue about Honda vs Kent. You realize these cars were legal in SCCA with wide pods then last May the rules changed. There was no discussion about it externally. Was there about letting the Honda in, yes! We are not talking about the same thing here. Cars that were legal for years are not now due to reasoning that does not make sense. It was BOP reason but the cars with wider pods are already at a disadvantage to same cars with narrow pods.

Im not trying to argue with you but your point is not relevant.

[jharvey]

Sorry you missed the point. I’m not trying to argue about Honda vs Kent. You realize these cars were legal in SCCA with wide pods then last May the rules changed. There was no discussion about it externally. Was there about letting the Honda in, yes! We are not talking about the same thing here. Cars that were legal for years are not now due to reasoning that does not make sense. It was BOP reason but the cars with wider pods are already at a disadvantage to same cars with narrow pods.

Im not trying to argue with you but your point is not relevant.

Seems like it should be easy to fix. Come up with real data proving that there is no advantage to the pods, and get the rule changed.

And the cars will be legal, just add 25 pounds. Or people can run narrow pods. Or they can stay home. Many options. Unfortunately, this constant screwing with rules continues to kill not only the class, but SCCA racing in general.

[Steve Bamford]

Seems like it should be easy to fix. Come up with real data proving that there is no advantage to the pods, and get the rule changed.

And the cars will be legal, just add 25 pounds. Or people can run narrow pods. Or they can stay home. Many options. Unfortunately, this constant screwing with rules continues to kill not only the class, but SCCA racing in general.

Right but the rules were changed...that’s the complaint on the thread. Where is data showing it was needed when they came up with the rule change in the first place? Do you see my point?

[hdsporty1988]

I also don't have a dog in this hunt, but I think I grasp the issue please correct me if I'm wrong.

A. Formula F cars are to be built according to (gasp) a "formula".
B. US and English formula used to be the same dimensionally
C. England went to a wider dimension for safety reasons
D. Cost effective cars were imported to the US from England
E. CRB passes a special exception for them, but expected the bottom of the side pods to be approximately 1" higher than the floor
F. Vehicles show up and the side pods are not 1" higher
G. English vehicles are back under scrutiny, CRB decides they either have to conform to the "formula" or weigh 25 #s more.
H. FRP doesn't care if they are wider as FRP has determined there is no advantage.
I. Competitors think they are actually at a disadvantage with the wider side pods but conversion cost is prohibitive.

So just my $.02 but nobody is really wrong here. The CRB has attempted to make the vehicles acceptable even though they were not built to the 'formula". I think they should be given credit for doing so. Competitors are now upset since they have purchased vehicles that are now at a disadvantage both aerodynamically and with extra weight which would cost a lot to change. I don't blame them for being upset, but.....emotions need to be tempered. It would appear that they should work through the process which I'm thinking should be to request that the "formula" be amended to allow cars to be up to the wide side pod dimensions since there is no competitive advantage and the cars are safer.

OK - go, tell me where I'm all wet!

[Steve Bamford]

I also don't have a dog in this hunt, but I think I grasp the issue please correct me if I'm wrong.

A. Formula F cars are to be built according to (gasp) a "formula".
B. US and English formula used to be the same dimensionally
C. England went to a wider dimension for safety reasons
D. Cost effective cars were imported to the US from England
E. CRB passes a special exception for them, but expected the bottom of the side pods to be approximately 1" higher than the floor
F. Vehicles show up and the side pods are not 1" higher
G. English vehicles are back under scrutiny, CRB decides they either have to conform to the "formula" or weigh 25 #s more.
H. FRP doesn't care if they are wider as FRP has determined there is no advantage.
I. Competitors think they are actually at a disadvantage with the wider side pods but conversion cost is prohibitive.

So just my $.02 but nobody is really wrong here. The CRB has attempted to make the vehicles acceptable even though they were not built to the 'formula". I think they should be given credit for doing so. Competitors are now upset since they have purchased vehicles that are now at a disadvantage both aerodynamically and with extra weight which would cost a lot to change. I don't blame them for being upset, but.....emotions need to be tempered. It would appear that they should work through the process which I'm thinking should be to request that the "formula" be amended to allow cars to be up to the wide side pod dimensions since there is no competitive advantage and the cars are safer.

OK - go, tell me where I'm all wet!

I think you are pretty correct although E with the expected side pods 1 inch higher seems 50/50 if that is what was expected when CRB allowed these cars. I don’t know of any letters stating these cars side pods are not 1 inch higher then the floor. In fairness I am not privy to the letters either. I would imagine the letters were written by people much older then actual drivers of these Mygale cars who are tired of being beaten by drivers younger then most of their children. I don’t have proof of this but I would bet the house on it & I’m sure I’m not the only one.

This was a change made without data & proof, someone on the CRB tell me otherwise. I’ve seen numerous times on other topics we need data to make a change please provide. Just tell me you had data & that the requests didn’t come from the people I already indicated & I will stop.

To be clear, I have both Kent & Honda Mygales both with smaller side pods. I am arguing to try to help increase SCCA car counts not against them. By keeping the rule the way you have it there will be less entries.

[Jnovak]

steve, i understand your issue and i have one question.

when you received your Mygales were the bottoms of the wide sidepods 1" above the floor?

[Steve Bamford]

steve, i understand your issue and i have one question.

when you received your Mygales were the bottoms of the wide sidepods 1" above the floor?

Greg would be the one who could answer that question. The Honda Mygale was bought from Primas & had already been fitted with Beasley side pods that Greg needed to work out cooling issues with My first race in the car was at Mid Ohio & I believe I was the first person to blow up a Honda engine from over heating it The Kent I believe needed to be modified. After my car was bought & modified the SCCA rules were adjusted to allow the wider pod cars.

[Purple Frog]

Not that the history of this situation really matters; but i went back today and read a bunch of 6 year old documents for a few hours trying to rebuild the trail.

Late in the 2011 season of the then GRW F1600 Series Mygale's U.S. rep (D'Coaster [sp?]) was lobbying us accept the cars that had been garaged in England by the sweeping 2011 Euro rule change. After a series of meetings GRW decided to let the cars race in the F1600 Series. They were modern cars being sold at rock bottom prices.

I was tasked with editing the 2010 Euro regulations of over 40 pages into a document GRW could use. The only actual example of a car I could see was Steve's car, a 2007 model. It had been shipped over with the raised sidepods, and we were led to believe that was standard. I was told that because of the type of tyres they used in England the sidepods were raised to prevent crashing their outer edges in the pavement, etc.

Tonight in the 2010 Euro rules I found this spec:

The Lateral Protection structure base (Side pod
base) can be up to 25mm above the floor defined above, but
must be parallel to it, and subject to the 5mm flatness
tolerance.

Notice the word "can". Obviously during the holiday season of 2011 while i was rushing to get a set of rules out by early January 2012 i never really noticed that it said "can" and not "must". I'm assuming everyone else on the GRW crew while proofing the document never caught that either. We just published it and went on our merry way.

In 2013 when SCCA decided to let the cars in I sent the FSRAC web addresses to the original Ford Motor Company 2010 Euro rules, and copies of the GRW edited version. I don't think anybody caught the difference between "can" and "may". After all, most of us had been verbally saying the wide pods had to be raised 1". We said it so often we believed it. No one ever went back to check the written word.

GRW became FRP about 2014.

About a year ago after the Runoffs the subject came under heavy scrutiny. I was asked. And I truly believed it was the rule... until many of us could not find it spelled out in either the 2010 Euro rules, nor the 2012 GRW rules. And at that point it was realized that there was no written basis (at least in the now FRP 1600 Series) to enforce a mandatory raised sidepod.

[Steve Bamford]

Mike thank you for going back to check & provide information.

It still does not make sense to add a weight penalty now without any data/information. What happened to having to provide this info before a rule change would be applied?

Mike, you've been around the track long enough to understand the reason these cars that are winning are being complained about. It isn't the wide pods that is giving them the silverware. These cars are prepped beyond most Club cars, drivers are mostly kids coming out of karting who started karting early on & have more driving experience then most of their competitors before they turn 16. Are the old guys stepping into these cars & going from the back of the back to the front instantly? The BOP doesn't make sense IMO.

[Bob Wright]

Short of taking one of each design into a wind tunnel, I’m not sure what would constitute “data and proof”. I don’t think the CRB has the budget for that. So short of that, the FRP results over the years are available to the CRB on line.

when one has results measured in tenths and hundredth of a second, a 25 lb penalty tends to take that car completely out of contention (our rule of thumb is 25 lbs adds 2-3 tenths PER lap- that was measured in a back to back test in a F2000 years ago)

Mike, good digging into the FRP archives and for the memory of how we arrived at the rules package. Funny how one word can change the whole meaning of a rule.

[Steve Bamford]

Short of taking one of each design into a wind tunnel, I’m not sure what would constitute “data and proof”. I don’t think the CRB has the budget for that. So short of that, the FRP results over the years are available to the CRB on line.

when one has results measured in tenths and hundredth of a second, a 25 lb penalty tends to take that car completely out of contention (our rule of thumb is 25 lbs adds 2-3 tenths PER lap- that was measured in a back to back test in a F2000 years ago)

So how does BOP decide upon the weight penalty then as I have asked above if no data and proof available currently other then race results?

Wouldn't the added time per lap be more if it was 2-3 tenths in a higher HP car being a FC compared to a FF? I could be wrong on that but believe it would be different.

Even if only 2-3 tenths if you add that up over 15-20 laps that will leave you 7 plus seconds back on the low end. Races have been decided with hundreds & thousands of second in FRP races multiple times. I think Bob helped explain how much this penalizes competitors. Thank you Bob for the info.

[Purple Frog]

The sidepod specs in the 2010 Euro rules is fairly lengthy.
In the section it defines the shape of the outer edges of the sidepods:

The periphery of the bodywork
covering the Lateral Protection Structure, when viewed from
below, must be curved upwards with a minimum radius of 5cm,
and a maximum radius of 7cm with the exception of air entry
and exit openings into the Lateral Protection Structure.

The floor of the side pod must
reflect the plan of the upper surface.

It was explained to me at the time (2011) this curvature was mandatory for two reasons.
1. safety; no sharp edges.
2. prevent any aero advantage

[Steve Bamford]

The sidepod specs in the 2010 Euro rules is fairly lengthy.
In the section it defines the shape of the outer edges of the sidepods:

The periphery of the bodywork
covering the Lateral Protection Structure, when viewed from
below, must be curved upwards with a minimum radius of 5cm,
and a maximum radius of 7cm with the exception of air entry
and exit openings into the Lateral Protection Structure.

The floor of the side pod must
reflect the plan of the upper surface.

It was explained to me at the time (2011) this curvature was mandatory for two reasons.
1. safety; no sharp edges.
2. prevent any aero advantage

so how did CRB come up with a 2-3 tenth penalty per lap system based on Bob’s info? Doesn’t seem right but I guess I’m one of few thinking this way.

[Purple Frog]

Maybe because Bob's GRW/FRP F1600 staff eliminated the 40mm minimum ground clearance spec that was contained in the 2010 Euro rules.

[Steve Bamford]

Maybe because Bob's GRW/FRP F1600 staff eliminated the 40mm minimum ground clearance spec that was contained in the 2010 Euro rules.

?

so add 25 lbs fixes that? Come on guys...if a mistake was made here can we not admit to it? If you don’t think a mistake was made then please explain how 25 lbs is a balance of performance. I’m trying to use common sense here & it seems common sense isn’t common.

[jharvey]

Maybe they looked at time cards and found that the Mygale's, in general, have a slower top speed, but faster corner sector times. Just a wild guess. I will be curious as to what the final verdict is. The rules process in the local NW club where I am from has an interesting process...you will have a bunch of guys that run BMW's or whatnot that can/will vote on rules for CF, with no actual knowledge of the class.

[Purple Frog]

Steve,
I could sort of support your "16 year old kid theory".

In the pro series we had a radar gun to play with. I used to go out and hide in the tires at T1 at VIR, or station 9 at Atlanta.

The Citations (Greiner), Pipers (Kautz, Foster), and Spectrums (Cape) were faster than the Mygales.

But...

Those non-Mygale cars were usually raced by independents or drivers over 30. The Mygales were campaigned by teams with 3 cars each piloted by 16 year olds. Once the 16 year olds realized that if they formed wolfpacks of 3 to 6 cars running nose to tail bumping each other in the tail, any aero disadvantage disappeared. Most of the older guys (Steve aside) just couldn't stay in those intense packs for 18 laps. They just stepped up the game in my opinion.
Hell, they were running so close for so long they wanted to run electric fans on their rads to keep them cool, so they wouldn't have to stick their nose out of the draft. We are talking big wide sidepod cars needing fans. LOL

[Steve Bamford]

Steve,
I could sort of support your "16 year old kid theory".

In the pro series we had a radar gun to play with. I used to go out and hide in the tires at T1 at VIR, or station 9 at Atlanta.

The Citations (Greiner), Pipers (Kautz, Foster), and Spectrums (Cape) were faster than the Mygales.

But...

Those non-Mygale cars were usually raced by independents or drivers over 30. The Mygales were campaigned by teams with 3 cars each piloted by 16 year olds. Once the 16 year olds realized that if they formed wolfpacks of 3 to 6 cars running nose to tail bumping each other in the tail, any aero disadvantage disappeared. Most of the older guys (Steve aside) just couldn't stay in those intense packs for 18 laps. They just stepped up the game in my opinion.
Hell, they were running so close for so long they wanted to run electric fans on their rads to keep them cool, so they wouldn't have to stick their nose out of the draft. We are talking big wide sidepod cars needing fans. LOL

Sort of support my 16 year old theory? You know you do...you even wrote it out that hanging in for that many laps is very tough. I was mentally exhausted after trying to stay up there looking ahead while keeping my eyes on the mirrors for the cars inches behind my gear box.

So with the “Aero disadvantage” noted of the larger pods can we agree that this rule makes no sense at all to add more weight to a disadvantaged car? The only some what conclusion I have come to with this thread is that older slower drivers were sick of losing to a pack of yellow cars that had aero disadvantages but were piloted by teenagers that have more talent in their right foot then they do. Would I be making incorrect assumptions on that?

[hdsporty1988]

Sort of support my 16 year old theory? You know you do...you even wrote it out that hanging in for that many laps is very tough. I was mentally exhausted after trying to stay up there looking ahead while keeping my eyes on the mirrors for the cars inches behind my gear box.

So with the “Aero disadvantage” noted of the larger pods can we agree that this rule makes no sense at all to add more weight to a disadvantaged car? The only some what conclusion I have come to with this thread is that older slower drivers were sick of losing to a pack of yellow cars that had aero disadvantages but were piloted by teenagers that have more talent in their right foot then they do. Would I be making incorrect assumptions on that?

More to the point, drivers piloting vehicles built to the "formula" were being beaten by drivers piloting vehicles granted an exemption to the "formula". So now instead of those granted the exemption just being competitive and making up car counts, they are winning causing much consternation to those who view their vehicles as "legal" to the formula vs those that were granted an exemption. I'm not saying this is the right view, but if correct, it emphasizes the need to request a change to the "formula".

Your reasoning is sound, but it needs to be communicated to the right individuals through the proper process for it to be "heard" by those who can effect the change. Stating the facts here will have little to no effect. Have you sent your letter yet? .

[Steve Bamford]

More to the point, drivers piloting vehicles built to the "formula" were being beaten by drivers piloting vehicles granted an exemption to the "formula". So now instead of those granted the exemption just being competitive and making up car counts, they are winning causing much consternation to those who view their vehicles as "legal" to the formula vs those that were granted an exemption. I'm not saying this is the right view, but if correct, it emphasizes the need to request a change to the "formula".

Your reasoning is sound, but it needs to be communicated to the right individuals through the proper process for it to be "heard" by those who can effect the change. Stating the facts here will have little to no effect. Have you sent your letter yet? .

Letter ID Number: #23681

it will be interesting to see when it is addressed.

[Purple Frog]

To be the devil's advocate...

The extra 25 pounds didn't seem to effect the results at the 2017 Runoffs.

[Steve Bamford]

To be the devil's advocate...

The extra 25 pounds didn't seem to effect the results at the 2017 Runoffs.

How did the Mygale drivers do that were legal to drink & not Pro drivers? Steve Oseth was the only older driver I could see driving a Mygale & did well but was still approx 1.2 seconds behind the fastest lap.

I go back to an earlier post asking if a Mygale car has taken any back markers & instantanly moves them to top step of the podium? I think we should request any car that wins the entire field driving these cars carries a 25 lb penalty that increases by 25 lbs for each & every win until they do not win then we can reduce the weight 25 lbs at a time. That would make sense to me for BOP purposes based on the current rule change.

[Purple Frog]

Since this discussion has been so calm and civil...

I was thinking about this debate last evening, and reading all the emails and PMs bouncing around. Some really nice folks are debating the issue and at least in the SCCA corner trying to figure out what to do.

As I pondered a question i had received via email, my mind turn a different tangent. "Why is the FF formula stuck on the 90mm wide bodywork rule in the first place?"

Sometimes its good to know the history behind a decision...

When I have questions of history or vehicle dynamics many times i turn to my good buddy Steve Lathrop. So, I posed these questions to him:

In the big rules Pow-wow back in 1986 how did the 90cm width rule come to be?
What was the rational?

Steve's answer:


That meeting was in Denver, Co. and every active builder of FF cars was there. It was a big meeting.

The 90 cm rule goes back to the the first FF, probably Colin Chapman is responsible. It was not even discussed as I remember. The big issues were ground effects, the new roll cage rules and driver's position relative to wheels.

The nose box / crush structures were the newest item added to the rules. That was largely Adrian Reynard's work and it was based on what he had found in crash testing of his F3 cars. Pedals and driver's feet location were specified to be no further forward that the front wheels, that was where Swift had the pedals. Also specified was the minimum width in side the foot box. Again it was the Swift dimension.

Diffusers were defined for FF. 90 cm was retained to limit ground effects. I actually drew a diffuser as we run them on the FC and it was agreed that that would be legal. The flat bottom rule for FF was defined then as well. When we added FC to the SCCA car mix, the flat bottom rules were taken from the English rules for the class.

FC was not a class then. they were being raced in Canada.

So... what this tells me is that we just copied the English rules at the time. Probably since most the chassis came from there (except Swift).

Now, scroll forward. By as early as 2002, maybe earlier, the English decided cars would be a lot safer if the sidepods were wider, providing more crush area. This might lead some to ask, "Why didn't we follow the English lead again?"

I'm sure there are many answers, but mostly we probably didn't follow because of the embedded base of SCCA members/customer's already existing cars.

I guess it boils down to the old argument as to whether the "formula" should be frozen for all time, or whether it is elastic and changes with the times...

Anyway, a bit more history for those of you that might have been in diapers in 1986.

Flame away.

[hdsporty1988]

Since this discussion has been so calm and civil...

I was thinking about this debate last evening, and reading all the emails and PMs bouncing around. Some really nice folks are debating the issue and at least in the SCCA corner trying to figure out what to do.

As I pondered a question i had received via email, my mind turn a different tangent. "Why is the FF formula stuck on the 90mm wide bodywork rule in the first place?"

Sometimes its good to know the history behind a decision...

When I have questions of history or vehicle dynamics many times i turn to my good buddy Steve Lathrop. So, I posed these questions to him:

In the big rules Pow-wow back in 1986 how did the 90cm width rule come to be?
What was the rational?

Steve's answer:


That meeting was in Denver, Co. and every active builder of FF cars was there. It was a big meeting.

The 90 cm rule goes back to the the first FF, probably Colin Chapman is responsible. It was not even discussed as I remember. The big issues were ground effects, the new roll cage rules and driver's position relative to wheels.

The nose box / crush structures were the newest item added to the rules. That was largely Adrian Reynard's work and it was based on what he had found in crash testing of his F3 cars. Pedals and driver's feet location were specified to be no further forward that the front wheels, that was where Swift had the pedals. Also specified was the minimum width in side the foot box. Again it was the Swift dimension.

Diffusers were defined for FF. 90 cm was retained to limit ground effects. I actually drew a diffuser as we run them on the FC and it was agreed that that would be legal. The flat bottom rule for FF was defined then as well. When we added FC to the SCCA car mix, the flat bottom rules were taken from the English rules for the class.

FC was not a class then. they were being raced in Canada.

So... what this tells me is that we just copied the English rules at the time. Probably since most the chassis came from there (except Swift).

Now, scroll forward. By as early as 2002, maybe earlier, the English decided cars would be a lot safer if the sidepods were wider, providing more crush area. This might lead some to ask, "Why didn't we follow the English lead again?"

I'm sure there are many answers, but mostly we probably didn't follow because of the embedded base of SCCA members/customer's already existing cars.

I guess it boils down to the old argument as to whether the "formula" should be frozen for all time, or whether it is elastic and changes with the times...

Anyway, a bit more history for those of you that might have been in diapers in 1986.

Flame away.

Very well researched and stated. In my opinion, no rules or part of rules should ever stay stagnant. As we are here there will always be reasons to update them. Especially where they address a safety issue which is what it appears occurred here. The formula should be amended. Hopefully the letter(s) requesting so receive a positive outcome.

[Steve Bamford]

No need to flame that is good info to have. Sounds like with all the PM’s & emails you have been receiving the topic is note worthy at the very least.

Since the rule for 90 cm was simply copied because that is what others did also helps my arguement that the rule change is not well thought out. If there is increased safety having larger pods then penalizing cars for running safer cars with weight penalty might promote people to adapt them, if they have the funds to, which will make them less safe vehicles. I’m sure SCCA is protected from legal issues with some wording & document I sign some where but I also know that might not be good for the club if something should ever happen which no one wants to see obviously.