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

[R. Pare]

So to say the rule has been in place since 1986 is incorrect.

Bull****. The 95 CM rule has been part of the ff rules since the '86 re-write.

[Steve Bamford]

do you mean that the SCCA should test every new car or design in the tunnel? The club just lucked out that some wind tunnel testing was done overseas. Now you may not like the decision but you obviously would have developed your Mygales to gain an advantage in any case. Unless of course if the wide side pod mygales have a slight advantage.

Mine are both narrow pods car Jay if that gives you any clue on where the advantage is. Thus why I am saying over & over & over your decision is wrong.

[Steve Bamford]

Bull****. The 95 CM rule has been part of the ff rules since the '86 re-write.

Sorry but you are incorrect about the allowance of these cars with wide pods for years with no weight penalty. If you notice the change to add a weight penalty was added last year thus how this topic/thread started. So BS does not apply to what I wrote.

[A.Dobb]

that was the original rule all over the world for close to 50 years. I know that, based on data, that we saw that the wiider side pods would have required every existing car to chage their side pods if they wanted to be competitive.

The wide side pod cars will still be competitive imo. Dont change your pods unless you want to.

wide pod cars will still be competitive? the ruling was that as of July all cars must meet the 95cm width aka no more wide side pods at all...I have no choice so I will be doing it!

[Steve Bamford]

do you mean that the SCCA should test every new car or design in the tunnel? The club just lucked out that some wind tunnel testing was done overseas. Now you may not like the decision but you obviously would have developed your Mygales to gain an advantage in any case. Unless of course if the wide side pod mygales have a slight advantage.

Since the info is available from overseas what is increased drag on the car vs the downforce? I’m just questioning the difference & how you or anyone calculated the difference. Many of you are extremely talented engineers who can easily do the correct mathematical equations to figure this out so I’m just curious as to the advantage/disadvantage.

[DaveW]

... Many of you are extremely talented engineers who can easily do the correct mathematical equations to figure this out so I’m just curious as to the advantage/disadvantage.

I am an engineer, but...

I think you are overestimating what engineers can do. There are no easy to use equations that give much indication of aero performance. Even with the best CFD programs, results have to be verified with real on road or moving-floor wind tunnel data. Sure, some of us can look at a design and sometimes give a useful opinion on whether it is better or worse than something else, but even with the most extensive aero background, that sort of opinion is often completely out to lunch.

Definitive aero analysis is extremely expensive and time consuming. That's why all the big teams have their own wind tunnels, and they are constantly in use.

[Steve Bamford]

I am an engineer, but...

I think you are overestimating what engineers can do. There are no easy to use equations that give much indication of aero performance. Even with the best CFD programs, results have to be verified with real on road or moving-floor wind tunnel data. Sure, some of us can look at a design and sometimes give a useful opinion on whether it is better or worse than something else, but even with the most extensive aero background, that sort of opinion is often completely out to lunch.

Definitive aero analysis is extremely expensive and time consuming. That's why all the big teams have their own wind tunnels, and they are constantly in use.

Thanks Dave. I am the farthest thing from being an engineer so that is why I am asking. It was said by CRB member that the downforce improvement outweighed the increased drag so me being a dummy assumed there were mathematical calculations done to justify this. I guess my assumption goes back to an old saying...

I am really not trying to cause issues, I’m just trying debate the discussion using common sense. Now people have to cut up their cars, wow that’s a great decision with no real data provided.

[R. Pare]

Sorry but you are incorrect about the allowance of these cars with wide pods for years with no weight penalty. If you notice the change to add a weight penalty was added last year thus how this topic/thread started. So BS does not apply to what I wrote.

Try actually reading what i wrote - the 95cm width rule has been in place since '86. I said NOTHING about the wide sidepod allowance rule.

[Steve Bamford]

Try actually reading what i wrote - the 95cm width rule has been in place since '86. I said NOTHING about the wide sidepod allowance rule.

You decided to cut out a certain portion of what I wrote & call BS on it. You started by saying people were complaining about a rule that has been in place since 80’s. I really think it is you who needs to go back & read what I actually wrote instead of picking out one sentance out of a entire post. Go back & use my entire post & tell me I’m wrong in what I wrote. After that go back & read what you wrote about why people, me & a handful of others, are complaining about a rule set that has been changed.

Once again as clairty to to many reading, I own Mygale cars that have narrow pods, I have no reason to argue for widepod cars other then to try to Help the class improve car counts.

[Steve Bamford]

That rule has been in effect since what, 1986? And now a few want to complain??? Really?

I'm not saying that the rule is either good or bad, but when you buy a car that does not conform to the rules that are in place, don't complain that you have to spend money to make it legal.

If there is a legit reason to change the width rule, start lobbying for the change.

Here is what you wrote so we are clear what we are discussing....

people bought these cars cars when they were legal to run in SCCA until mid last year...what do you say to them. Too bad so sad? You bought something that conformed to the rules but now go spend 5-6 k so you can keep running?

[R. Pare]

Oh good lord. Reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits, is it.

This conversation is not worth my time.

If people do not like this 3rd rule iteration ( reversal back to the original '86 ruie), then lobby the club to reinstate the 2nd version. You have 6 1/2 months before it the reversal comes into effect.

[Steve Bamford]

Oh good lord. Reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits, is it.

This conversation is not worth my time.

If people do not like this 3rd rule iteration ( reversal back to the original '86 ruie), then lobby the club to reinstate the 2nd version. You have 6 1/2 months before it the reversal comes into effect.

Im sure you are correct. I must not have read properly once again or understood. I’m not all dat smrt.

[DaveW]

Oh good lord. Reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits, is it.

This conversation is not worth my time.

If people do not like this 3rd rule iteration ( reversal back to the original '86 ruie), then lobby the club to reinstate the 2nd version. You have 6 1/2 months before it the reversal comes into effect.

Im sure you are correct. I must not have read properly once again or understood. I’m not all dat smrt.

I'm not trying to piss anyone off, and I didn't read all the info on this as if studying for a test. However, having said that, I did read it twice, and it confused me. Each time I read it I thought I saw a different meaning. Maybe it's just old age...

[Jnovak]

I'm not trying to piss anyone off, and I didn't read all the info on this as if studying for a test. However, having said that, I did read it twice, and it confused me. Each time I read it I thought I saw a different meaning. Maybe it's just old age...

there is an error in the posting. That is what the preliminary postings are for is to find errors.

Should be corrected before final posting in a week or so. I misunderstood it too.

[Steve Bamford]

I find it hard to believe in the land of ambulance chasers the CRB who once ruled cars legal will make people make their cars less safe to be legal. That was the reason as most know why the Euro cars went to wide pods.

[Wren]

I read the prelims and I can’t tell what the rule is supposed to say.

Are wide side pod cars going to be legal by the end of 2018 or not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[R. Pare]

No. They must comply to the narrower width and weight as of 7/1/2018

Not specifically stated there (and it needs to be specified), is that the converted cars will also have to conform to all other current SCCA FF rules.

[Wren]

So obviously it still has to go to the BOD to be voted on and I suppose that is where people should direct their letters and phone calls now.

It’s hard for me to imagine this decision didn’t fall into one of two categories:

1. Someone got their feeling hurt that some other people said mean things about the new minimum weight and this is how they are lashing out.

2. The wankers who can’t drive or prep their cars as well as the pro teams are hoping that the really talented teams and drivers won’t bother converting and consequently the level of competition will drop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve Bamford]

So obviously it still has to go to the BOD to be voted on and I suppose that is where people should direct their letters and phone calls now.

It’s hard for me to imagine this decision didn’t fall into one of two categories:

1. Someone got their feeling hurt that some other people said mean things about the new minimum weight and this is how they are lashing out.

2. The wankers who can’t drive or prep their cars as well as the pro teams are hoping that the really talented teams and drivers won’t bother converting and consequently the level of competition will drop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bingo! Those are my feelings at least. If I’m wrong or Wren is please explain.

[Raceworks]

The FSRAC was presented with information derived from wind tunnel testing of both narrow and wide side pod configurations. The wide pods proved to generate more downforce than the narrow pods. While the wider pods did show increased drag over the narrow pods, the increase in drag was not of significant magnitude to overcome the improved downforce. Another factor that was given consideration in the decision making process was the improved cooling that is generated with the wide pods. The Honda FIT is mapped such that ignition timing is backed out when the intake and water temperatures reach specific levels; this results in a dramatic decrease in engine performance. A narrow pod car being unable to cool as efficiently is thus at a disadvantage. The 25# weight was added to the wide pod British cars until such time as the overall width rule could be made consistent over all cars in the class. Obviously, there are other small differences in the British spec cars, but those are not seen as items which impact performance from a competition perspective. When a formula that has been in place over a number of years is modified things like this can and should be expected to arise. Cars which are brought in as spec line cars and do not otherwise meet the established rule set or formula are subject to periodic review and adjustment based upon their respective performance. The FSRAC declined to recommend a change to the rule to allow wider pods due to the number of cars that would be impacted.

If you can't get a narrow body car to run within the Honda temperature parameters you have no business prepping cars. If I managed to do it over 3 different chassis ANYBODY can.

[Raceworks]

Steve - The FSRAC and CRB do not share or make public the information and data that is used in decision making for obvious reasons. If those parties wish to share the information publicly it would be their perogative. Happy New Year. John

What "obvious reasons?" Are the Soviets going to beat us in the space race if we divulge this to the public?

Personally I don't care as it's a decision that negatively affects my competition, but the consistent lack of transparency with a lot of these decisions is what perpetuates the idea that these decisions are based more on politics than science.

Even if it was a redacted report, with just what chassis was being tested in both configurations and comparative numbers, it'd be more credible than this "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" nonsense.

[Jnovak]

I find it hard to believe in the land of ambulance chasers the CRB who once ruled cars legal will make people make their cars less safe to be legal. That was the reason as most know why the Euro cars went to wide pods.

just curious Steve. were you worried about saftey when you purchased your narrow side pod Mygale or spent additional thousands optimizing them?

[Jnovak]

What "obvious reasons?" Are the Soviets going to beat us in the space race if we divulge this to the public?

Personally I don't care as it's a decision that negatively affects my competition, but the consistent lack of transparency with a lot of these decisions is what perpetuates the idea that these decisions are based more on politics than science.

Even if it was a redacted report, with just what chassis was being tested in both configurations and comparative numbers, it'd be more credible than this "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" nonsense.

i am simply amazed at yours and Steves comments concerning the integrety of the many volunteer workers of the SCCA. It is my very firm opinion that the FSRAC and the CRB only have the best interests of the club members in mind when they make their sometimes very difficult decisions. What other possible reason could there possibly be? I am a member of the FSRAC and both the FSRAC and the CRB have made ruling changes that have directly and negatively effected the competitive positions of my cars and drivers. While i may not have been happy i have NEVER EVER thought that there was something underhanded going on within either the FSRAC or the CRB.

I suggest that you get involved by volunteering your valuable time if your not happy.

[Steve Bamford]

just curious Steve. were you worried about saftey when you purchased your narrow side pod Mygale or spent additional thousands optimizing them?

No Jay. My car had to conform to the rules so no choice. SCCA changed the rules to allow these cars to run with wide pods as we all know. Since then two rule changes. Didn’t Radon sue SCCA & cause much trouble for SCCA & safety was one of the arguments used? Maybe I’m wrong & you can correct me but if Mygale choose to wouldn’t SCCA be in a similar circumstance? God forbid some got hurt in a former wide pod car that was forced to change based on the new rules.

[Wren]

What "obvious reasons?" Are the Soviets going to beat us in the space race if we divulge this to the public?

I understand why they don’t share data. Obviously, this is a competition and people should be able to submit their data to the CRB without having it shared with everyone. I wouldn’t want any wind tunnel data I had on my car shared with anyone else and it’s reasonable for others to expect the same. The same applies to any other data that I might have.
But, the CRB/FSRAB shouldn’t be surprised when other people share data that directly contradicts their “data,” people are going to believe the person who is open with their data. It appears that Steve has the only narrow pod Mygale FF in the country. So, the CRB data was probably taken in another country and probably wasn’t taken with an SCCA FF. When we don’t know anything about the data, the cars, the configuration, or the tunnel and the data contradicts other people’s observations, no one should be getting their feelings hurt when no one believes them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jharvey]

If safety is the actual reason behind the argument, then should not all cars be wide pod? I don't think that was the case.

Besides, how do we know that Mygale did not lobby their downforce advantage to be shown as a safety advantage? Does the Mygale have additional reinforcement in the pod covers or floors? If not, there is little supposed crash protection.

Also, it's the "wankers" that keep the Runoffs going. It's supposed to be an amateur racing event, not a pro event. It's unfortunate that we do not all have the same budget and time as the "pro" guys. Lots of seat time, coupled with downforce, will be almost impossible to beat.

[Wren]

Also, it's the "wankers" that keep the Runoffs going.

No. Absolutely not. It’s supposed to be the best racers in SCCA.

It's supposed to be an amateur racing event, not a pro event.

The kids(and adults) that are driving these wide body cars are every bit as much of an amateur as you and I are.

If people don’t want this rule, just write and call the BOD and explain the situation to them. I suspect that you will find a sympathetic ear when you explain the CRB’s proposed rule will make non-compliant a lot of cars that are currently compliant. It seems likely that the CRB understands this as well and they are just letting everyone know that they can always make things worse.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jnovak]

If people don’t want this rule, just write and call the BOD and explain the situation to them. I suspect that you will find a sympathetic ear when you explain the CRB’s proposed rule will make non-compliant a lot of cars that are currently compliant. It seems likely that the CRB understands this as well and they are just letting everyone know that they can always make things worse.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

does anyone know how many wide sidepod cars are currently racing here in the states?

[Steve Bamford]

does anyone know how many wide sidepod cars are currently racing here in the states?

Jay I will take a quick guess that the number available would be in the high 20’s to low 30’s. The field at Sebring Majors this weekend is 20% approx Mygale cars. So if the new rule were in place then possibly 20% less entrants.

[jharvey]

The major in California this weekend has no Mygale cars entered. Maybe most of the Mygales are on the east coast?

[Steve Bamford]

The major in California this weekend has no Mygale cars entered. Maybe most of the Mygales are on the east coast?

Most are on the east coast yes. I was wrong on my number of 20% as I think this weekend it is 31% Mygales entered.

I wouod also also bet that Mygales out sold any other manufacture over the last 3 years so the rule change effects many current cars driving.

[A.Dobb]

Correct - once a design is approved, it is approved for all of that manufacturers cars of that design.

Do you know if the roll hoop for 05 Van Diemen is approved? - It was originally a UK car with wide sidepods. Or do I have to go through the process of getting it approved?

[R. Pare]

I'm afraid that I have no idea what VD did with that car, though if it was imported for over here, it HAD to get approved through the usual club procedure to race here. You best bet on an answer would be to email Ralph Firman ( ralphfman@aol.com ) to find out, or call whomever the importer of the car was at that time. Sorry!

However, if your car was originally made and sold into the UK market, in may not have been originally approved for SCCA racing - I think that they had a main hoop of smaller diameter tubing. Did you get the car from someone who brought it over here, or did you import it?

[A.Dobb]

I'm afraid that I have no idea what VD did with that car, though if it was imported for over here, it HAD to get approved through the usual club procedure to race here. You best bet on an answer would be to email Ralph Firman ( ralphfman@aol.com ) to find out, or call whomever the importer of the car was at that time. Sorry!

However, if your car was originally made and sold into the UK market, in may not have been originally approved for SCCA racing - I think that they had a main hoop of smaller diameter tubing. Did you get the car from someone who brought it over here, or did you import it?

I've just emailed the previous owner to confirm but my assumption was it was originally sold to the UK market then was imported to Canada. It hasn't been an issue up to this point because it was previously only raced in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia.

The roll hoop looks awfully similar to the other 2001+ Van Diemens that are racing in SCCA so I would think I would be fine. I just wanted to confirm as on the previous page of this thread somebody said, "VDs do not have "legal" SCCA roll bars. You can submit an alternative design with a engineers opinion that the design meets SCCA standards, if SCCA accepts you submission you are good to go.. "

[R. Pare]

Well, I could be way off here as I was not involved much with any cars at that time, and my memory could be suspect, but I seem to recall that at some point the VDs came over with a hoop made from 1" tube instead of the required 1.375. Sometime shortly after that, the club mandated the larger tube even for 'alternative designs". I haven't looked at that part of the GCR for a few years, so you might want to check that it is still there.

If the larger tube is required and your car has the smaller tube, it might be possible for you to get the larger tube version made ( copying exactly an existing hoop), and get the club to accept it since it is a copy of an existing approved design.

Are you planning on running the car in SCCA races, or just Canadian?

[A.Dobb]

Well, I could be way off here as I was not involved much with any cars at that time, and my memory could be suspect, but I seem to recall that at some point the VDs came over with a hoop made from 1" tube instead of the required 1.375. Sometime shortly after that, the club mandated the larger tube even for 'alternative designs". I haven't looked at that part of the GCR for a few years, so you might want to check that it is still there.

If the larger tube is required and your car has the smaller tube, it might be possible for you to get the larger tube version made ( copying exactly an existing hoop), and get the club to accept it since it is a copy of an existing approved design.

Are you planning on running the car in SCCA races, or just Canadian?

SCCA. If I was staying in Canada I'd be fine. Which I guess is the point of the whole side-pod fiasco. As far as I know everywhere in Canada allows the wider pods at par.

[R. Pare]

OK then - the car will have to meet the SCCA hoop specs since you will be racing south of the border.

As to the sidepods, the car was built in 2005, which means that it most likely does not even meet the 2010 UK specs that the controversy is all about. If that is the case, and the club reverses its "narrow pod only" decision, you might be able to get them to approve your wide pods, even if they were not built to the 2010 UK specs, but I would not bet my house on it.

This is the whole problem with making "alternative" allowances in a formula class - there will always end up with more and more non-club spec cars that people want to get exemptions for. I don't know the why-fors of their decision, but i suspect that they decided that Balance of Performance specs do not belong in a formula class for fear of the added complexity to the rules ( take a look at all of the BoP work that goes into trying to achieve balance in the various sedan car classes - it gets rather ridiculous!).

[A.Dobb]

OK then - the car will have to meet the SCCA hoop specs since you will be racing south of the border.

As to the sidepods, the car was built in 2005, which means that it most likely does not even meet the 2010 UK specs that the controversy is all about. If that is the case, and the club reverses its "narrow pod only" decision, you might be able to get them to approve your wide pods, even if they were not built to the 2010 UK specs, but I would not bet my house on it.

This is the whole problem with making "alternative" allowances in a formula class - there will always end up with more and more non-club spec cars that people want to get exemptions for. I don't know the why-fors of their decision, but i suspect that they decided that Balance of Performance specs do not belong in a formula class for fear of the added complexity to the rules ( take a look at all of the BoP work that goes into trying to achieve balance in the various sedan car classes - it gets rather ridiculous!).

thx for the help. I'll go through the GCR's. I'm getting the narrow pods regardless to meet the July deadline - I just wanted to be sure the roll hoop wasn't going to be an issue as well. I'll check the thickness of my roll hoop and give SCCA a call.

[Bob Wright]

measure the roll hoop dia.- there were a bunch of the small ones brought into the USA over the years and run in various Pro series that didn't care; The club cares and it needs to be the 1.375 dia., IIRC.

[DaveW]

measure the roll hoop dia.- there were a bunch of the small ones brought into the USA over the years and run in various Pro series that didn't care; The club cares and it needs to be the 1.375 dia., IIRC.

As Richard Pare pointed out in a subsequent post, 1.375 x 0.080 main hoop tubing appears to be required in all cars since the late '90's.

If there is an engineering analysis that proves it meets the strength requirements, the 1.375 may not be necessary. Per the GCR:
------------------------------------------------------------
9.2.2. HOMOLOGATION REQUIREMENTS
9. Cars and Equipment
All Formula, Sports Racing, P1 and P2 cars shall be constructed in strict accordance with the rules and regulations
contained in the current GCR unless specifically excepted. Cars registered prior to January 1, 1983 do
not require homologation certificates.
Cars which do comply with the design criteria set forth for roll hoops (GCR 9.4.5) do not require a homologation
certificate. Cars which do not comply with the design criteria set forth for roll hoops (GCR 9.4.5) may
submit an application to the Club Racing Technical Manager as defined in GCR 9.4.5.F. The Club Racing
Technical Staff, may deny any application for a configuration which is not compliant with the rules, which incorporates
design characteristics or conditions that are fundamentally divergent from standard safety considerations
or is otherwise incompatible with the relevant class structure or philosophy. A fee to be determined
by Club Racing shall be assessed for all such applications.
Cars which are excepted from the published design criteria, shall at all times have available for examination a
current logbook, a copy of the letter of exception from Club Racing and supporting engineering documentation.
Cars which have previously been issued Homologation Certificates may satisfy this rule by presentation
of said certificate or a copy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------