FIA Safety Pods

[problemchild]

The SCCA Convention starts today.
I am sending a letter to all SCCA management people and board members that I can reach.
There will be a lot of interaction between leadership types and, hopefully, we can get the class back going in a positive direction.
If you feel this situation has been mishandled and needs to be sorted out, please contact anybody and everybody that you can today.
Hopefully, somebody can post links to send letters to the CRB and BOD.

SCCA People
There has been a messy misunderstanding developing in the Formula F class that is proving devastating to some members including myself. For several years, our class has been allowing cars that have FIA safety pods to race in SCCA FF. In the interest of safety, the FIA instituted rules that required Formula F/1600 cars to have extended side panels as a form of side protection. These side panels are very heavily regulated to have no aerodynamic benefits and a composite construction. They are heavy and add atleast 60 square inches of frontal area beyond the maximum width allowed by the traditional SCCA rules. SCCA wisely decided that it would be cost prohibitive to force American cars to conform to these rules, but allowed the cars with FIA safety pods to run in SCCA events. Some of the more well-funded teams removed the FIA safety pods, reconfigured the radiators, etc and raced the cars to the SCCA rule set. Everything was good. Formula F was in the best health of any of the SCCA formula car classes.
Somebody, in 2017, misunderstood how strictly regulated the FIA safety pod rules were, and surmised that they are creating extra downforce and should be handicapped. Nothing could be further from the truth. Well-funded teams are spending $5k+ to receive the performance benefits of removing the FIA safety pods. A devastating rule was put into place adding 25 lbs to minimum weight to cars with the FIA safety pods. Various alternatives have been proposed and discussed that are even more oppressive. Some alternatives would hurt other competitors by reducing minimum weights, etc.
People with cars using the FIA safety pods are doing fewer SCCA events and more non-SCCA events (FRP and Canada for example where all cars run the same minimum weight). But many SCCA members don't have access to these other events. I have a pair of cars with FIA safety pods (and spares inventory) which I use to provide arrive-n-drive service to racers. I would like to subsidize the pro racing (FRP) with SCCA events but have had to change my business model to subsidizing pro racing events with Canadian race events. I can just not justify spending $15K to remove the FIA safety pods.
In the year 2018, I would be concerned about the legal ramifications of requiring competitors to remove items from their race cars that do nothing but improve safety.
The only solution to this mess is to immediately rescind all rules that handicap or ban the FIA safety pods. It is not fair to penalize those with them, just as it would not be fair to mandate their use. The rules were fine as they were in 2016. Formula Race Promotions (FRP) have the same minimum weight for all cars and have announced they will continue to do so.
At the recent Sebring ST event, I took photos of most of the cars in attendance. http://www.riceraceprep.com/2018/01/...g-ff-pictures/
The yellow car with black sides is the lone car in attendance using the FIA safety pods. You can see that it is clearly the widest car and has more than double the total frontal area relative to some other competitors.

I hope this letter and the photos will bring understanding to this messy situation and bring a speedy resolution.
Please take the required steps to rescind the recent rule changes, and help the class continue to grow.

Thank you.
Greg Rice

[DaveW]

I think this is a move in the right direction - opening a dialog. I wouldn't have worded the letter exactly as Greg did, but hopefully it will move the situation toward a workable outcome.

[John Nesbitt]

Much better first step. It does not close off any options, but it offers the possibility of amicable resolution.

[problemchild]

I have convinced other parties to hold off on strong actions that will have ramifications and collateral damage that may not be good for SCCA or the class, but we need an immediate resolution. The time has long passed for "working towards an amicable discussion" or "opening a dialog". That should have been done a year ago. The race season has started. If SCCA racing is not going to be part of our business, then we need to move this forward to the inevitable conclusion.

I was really hoping that some one would post links to contact SCCA leadership. Thanks.

[John Nesbitt]

...

I was really hoping that some one would post links to contact SCCA leadership. Thanks.

https://www.scca.com/pages/contact-scca-staff

www.crbscca.com

https://www.scca.com/pages/boards-and-committees

Note that several CRB members do not post email addresses. Use the general address. All BOD members have addresses posted.

[problemchild]

Thanks John.

[fkennette]

Greg,

Hope you have better luck with this than I did when the powers that be at SCCA added "no electric water pumps" to the FC Zetec rules, when supposedly amending rules with only the intent of legalizing the re-building of the Zetec. Regardless of how or why that got slipped through, my letters to the CRB and BoD did not get so much as an acknowledgement.

Maybe they have something against Mygales? Just my C$0.02,

Francis Kennette

[OneWayOut]

Well-funded teams are spending $5k+ to receive the performance benefits of removing the FIA safety pods.

I don't really understand any of this. $5k for sidepods is crazy, but $15k for the Honda engine kit is acceptable?

Sidepods aren't preventing anyone from racing. Tire and engine costs are way more significant than a one time sidepod change.

[Charles Warner]

I think this is a move in the right direction - opening a dialog. I wouldn't have worded the letter exactly as Greg did, but hopefully it will move the situation toward a workable outcome.

I agree.

[Jnovak]

One of the realities of this issue that i am not sure if it has been mentioned is that the original wide sidepod rules for europe required that the bottom of the sidepods were required to be a specific hight above the bottom of the chassis. I think the height was 40mm above the floor. This was specifically stated to prevent downforce. Then at some time later the 40mm rule was removed and the cars then could have the bottom of the side pods flush with the floor.

Then we saw a wind tunnel test that indicated that the lowered side pods produced downforce. Thus the added 25 lbs to the minimum weight for wide side pod FF cars.

[Steve Bamford]

One of the realities of this issue that i am not sure if it has been mentioned is that the original wide sidepod rules for europe required that the bottom of the sidepods were required to be a specific hight above the bottom of the chassis. I think the height was 40mm above the floor. This was specifically stated to prevent downforce. Then at some time later the 40mm rule was removed and the cars then could have the bottom of the side pods flush with the floor.

Then we saw a wind tunnel test that indicated that the lowered side pods produced downforce. Thus the added 25 lbs to the minimum weight for wide side pod FF cars.

Jay quick question, wouldn’t a lowered narrow sidepod also create downforce? You listed running higher they don’t but lowering they did, but wouldn’t that be the same for all cars, meaning running them lower will increase the ability to create downforce?

[problemchild]

Where is the empirical data comparing FIA safety pods to a Citation, Piper, or Van Deimen that is configured to generate downforce by the SCCA rule package?

This so-called conclusive data is comparing FIA safety pods mounted differently on the same car running with a 50mm ride height rule. It just gets better and better! With the current FF pack-racing, people are shedding any downforce they can. Look at the pictures I posted on my website. If this data actually was conclusive, it would support that the FIA safety pods were slower. Unbelievable!

[BorkRacing]

Jay quick question, wouldn’t a lowered narrow sidepod also create downforce? You listed running higher they don’t but lowering they did, but wouldn’t that be the same for all cars, meaning running them lower will increase the ability to create downforce?

All things being equal, because downforce is directly related to the span of the wing cord, a wider pod will generate more downforce.

[Wren]

Then we saw a wind tunnel test that indicated that the lowered side pods produced downforce. Thus the added 25 lbs to the minimum weight for wide side pod FF cars.

Jay,

To what level did the FSRAC see this wind tunnel report? Was it an extensive report including the configuration and the raw data from the tunnel? An executive summary? A verbal summary?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RobLav]

With downforce comes drag. Downforce to drag ratio measured by varying the height of these sidepods would be cool to analyze.

WRT to the BOD email address, I've never ever received even an acknowledgement of receipt of any email. Waste of time and effort. Even when I flipped off the handle in one of the later FC threads, and John L said to submit a resume and offer to help fix the problems, I never got even a receipt acknowledge.

And we pay for this? Good luck.

[jharvey]

Where does the FIA refer to them as “safety pods”? I could find no such verbiage. Sounds like global warming...selling an idea based on fear.

I found FIA guidelines for a driver safety cell, which is strengthened by steel plate attached to the sides of the chassis, not about the pods.

Also, when did the F1600 rules change to allow wider pods? The European rules for the series stated a maximum 95cm width behind the front wheels.

[reidhazelton]

The SCCA Convention starts today.
I am sending a letter to all SCCA management people and board members that I can reach.
There will be a lot of interaction between leadership types and, hopefully, we can get the class back going in a positive direction. If you feel this situation has been mishandled and needs to be sorted out, please contact anybody and everybody that you can today. Hopefully, somebody can post links to send letters to the CRB and BOD.

Hey Greg - thanks for being part of the letter writing process and take the time to do so. Also - this is my first shot at a Wren-style multi quote so bare with me.

SCCA People,
There has been a messy misunderstanding developing in the Formula F class that is proving devastating to some members including myself. For several years, our class has been allowing cars that have FIA safety pods to race in SCCA FF. In the interest of safety, the FIA instituted rules that required Formula F/1600 cars to have extended side panels as a form of side protection. These side panels are very heavily regulated to have no aerodynamic benefits and a composite construction.

Yes, they were heavily regulated, requiring a step (40mm IIRC) above the floor pan as to not create a downforce advantage. When these cars were first brought in, that was the rule but as Mike Eakin pointed out with his detailed and helpful history lesson, the step was lost at some point in the translation. The genie got out of the bottle.

They are heavy and add at least 60 square inches of frontal area beyond the maximum width allowed by the traditional SCCA rules. SCCA wisely decided that it would be cost prohibitive to force American cars to conform to these rules, but allowed the cars with FIA safety pods to run in SCCA events.

Again, the intent and the rule on Day 1 was to retain the step in the floor.

Some of the more well-funded teams removed the FIA safety pods, reconfigured the radiators, etc and raced the cars to the SCCA rule set. Everything was good. Formula F was in the best health of any of the SCCA formula car classes.

If you ignore FV, sure.

Somebody, in 2017, misunderstood how strictly regulated the FIA safety pod rules were, and surmised that they are creating extra downforce and should be handicapped. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You are right, nothing is further from the truth. The strictly regulated pods became less regulated and the floor step was removed for the cars sent to the US. Also, nothing was 'surmised'. Nothing was based on an assumption, a guess, or a warm fuzzy feeling. The decisions were based on wind tunnel date that showed downforce was created with wide pods run level with the floor.

Well-funded teams are spending $5k+ to receive the performance benefits of removing the FIA safety pods. A devastating rule was put into place adding 25 lbs to minimum weight to cars with the FIA safety pods. Various alternatives have been proposed and discussed that are even more oppressive. Some alternatives would hurt other competitors by reducing minimum weights, etc.

Given the pods create a downforce advantage, how 'devastating' would it be for all the cars made to the SCCA rules since the '86 rewrite to potentially have to adapt wide pods to keep competitive in that aspect of design? That would kinda suck, right? Or, worse yet, have two sets of pods for slower or faster tracks? That would super suck wouldn't it?

People with cars using the FIA safety pods are doing fewer SCCA events and more non-SCCA events (FRP and Canada for example where all cars run the same minimum weight).

Likely because a car with FIA pods costs $50k+ for a used one and those people tend to have more resources to attend FRP events. That was the case before the rule was corrected, and it will be after. Correlation does not equal causation.

But many SCCA members don't have access to these other events. I have a pair of cars with FIA safety pods (and spares inventory) which I use to provide arrive-n-drive service to racers. I would like to subsidize the pro racing (FRP) with SCCA events but have had to change my business model to subsidizing pro racing events with Canadian race events. I can just not justify spending $15K to remove the FIA safety pods.

Non-snarky question as I am a little confused. I thought you converted your cars, hence your "$5k cost per car" experience. You also have 2 cars with standard pods but did not convert those? Now those two cars cost $7500 each to convert? Is this like $15,000 Kent rebuilds?

In the year 2018, I would be concerned about the legal ramifications of requiring competitors to remove items from their race cars that do nothing but improve safety.

The only solution to this mess is to immediately rescind all rules that handicap or ban the FIA safety pods. It is not fair to penalize those with them, just as it would not be fair to mandate their use.

It would also be unfair to the hundreds of cars built to the US SCCA spec to have to (or the perception of 'having to' for that matter) convert to a wider pod. Jay Novak's side pods on their Piper FB come to mind.

The rules were fine as they were in 2016. Formula Race Promotions (FRP) have the same minimum weight for all cars and have announced they will continue to do so.

That's the thing, no one is saying they were fine in 2016. It's that the rule was not properly defined and relied on quoting the Euro rule book as I understand it. Somewhere along the line the Euro book changed, and SCCA did not catch it until a year ago at which time nearly a year notice of the correction was given.

At the recent Sebring ST event, I took photos of most of the cars in attendance. http://www.riceraceprep.com/2018/01/...g-ff-pictures/

The yellow car with black sides is the lone car in attendance using the FIA safety pods. You can see that it is clearly the widest car and has more than double the total frontal area relative to some other competitors.

I hope this letter and the photos will bring understanding to this messy situation and bring a speedy resolution.
Please take the required steps to rescind the recent rule changes, and help the class continue to grow.

Thank you.
Greg Rice

Again, thank you for the time to be part of the letter writing process. It will be read, and taken into careful consideration as all letters are.

[reidhazelton]

And I want to add, and hope all who read this and take it as fact. The FSRAC and CRB are composed of people who have the class's/group's/club's best interests in mind. They are volunteers. No one, and I mean no one, that I have seen has ever made me even consider a selfish, conspiratorial, and vindictive motive. To think that is the case it absurd. These groups are volunteers, who give up a noticeable amount of time - time away from other things they would much rather be doing like spending time with family, hobbies, careers, etc. Wrongly, very wrongly, I suspected ulterior motives and was told that if I think that, join and be part of the solution. So, I put my money where my mouth is and offered to join. I can say without hesitation, I was completely wrong. Every phone call, email chain, and discussion I have been a part of has been with the best interests of the largest group of people in mind.

All decisions I have seen made or recommended are made based on data. That can be from engine builders, constructors, teams, tech officials, etc. The amount of brain power in these groups doesn't need to 'guess' at anything. If anyone ever proposed anything that was a guess or assumption they would be challenged on the spot. When data is presented, I have not seen one example where a member did not question its origin, accurateness, or validity.

There is NO CONSPIRACY against Mygale. That is totally ridiculous to assume. If you doubt me, then do what I did and join.And there are other mfg's out there other than Mygale with wide pods.

[Steve Bamford]

Ok I call BS on this whole deal....

let’s say the data you have shows the pods created more downforce then the skinner pods as the CRB is saying. These pods are wider & are creating more drag. So what does that equate to? Does drag in a low hp car such as a FF cause more issues then downforce? Did the CRB take any of that into consideration? If so what is the correlation? If I draft with a narrow sidepod Mygale I gain 1 mph over non draft. If I draft with a wide sidepod Mygale I gain 3 mph. What does that tell you?

I call BS on this whole deal because first a 25 lb weight penalty was applied & now you have to take a saw to your car because I can only assume people didn’t like the approach that was taken & don’t like to admit they may have made a mistake.

Everyone can clearly check they FRP history for laps & laps records, it is about 60% Mygale & 40% Spectrums. One was my car so that doesn’t count for wisepods. My numbers are slightly off as I believe there is swift in there or other car but overall pretty close. Now the majority of the teams are running Mygales, for a few years Spectrums were run but mostly Mygales. If they really had the advantage all laps records would be widepod.

Im sorry but this is a BS call as others have also indicated they don’t have Mygale wind tunnel info either.

[Steve Bamford]

And I want to add, and hope all who read this and take it as fact. The FSRAC and CRB are composed of people who have the class's/group's/club's best interests in mind. They are volunteers. No one, and I mean no one, that I have seen has ever made me even consider a selfish, conspiratorial, and vindictive motive. To think that is the case it absurd. These groups are volunteers, who give up a noticeable amount of time - time away from other things they would much rather be doing like spending time with family, hobbies, careers, etc. Wrongly, very wrongly, I suspected ulterior motives and was told that if I think that, join and be part of the solution. So, I put my money where my mouth is and offered to join. I can say without hesitation, I was completely wrong. Every phone call, email chain, and discussion I have been a part of has been with the best interests of the largest group of people in mind.

All decisions I have seen made or recommended are made based on data. That can be from engine builders, constructors, teams, tech officials, etc. The amount of brain power in these groups doesn't need to 'guess' at anything. If anyone ever proposed anything that was a guess or assumption they would be challenged on the spot. When data is presented, I have not seen one example where a member did not question its origin, accurateness, or validity.

There is NO CONSPIRACY against Mygale. That is totally ridiculous to assume. If you doubt me, then do what I did and join.And there are other mfg's out there other than Mygale with wide pods.

Reid thank you for stepping in. We need people to step up & help out. I’ve heard & seen people say, if you don’t like it please join the boards & add your help & stop complaining. I sit on 8 different boards myself, about half are non profit but all in the industry I work in & are better suited to give advice in. I have to speak in front of other business owners, other leaders, politicians, & other members of the organizations I represent on these boards. I do so & like you the first thing I need to do is work for the membership. I in good faith could never come up with a ruling, be challenged upon my ruling then issue a firmer punishment which is what was done. There is no other way to define what was recently done.

Everyone is failing to address a car built in 1995 is not likely to be competitive with a car built in 2017. Where is the logic? Why did Scott Andrews win the FRP series a few years ago in a Spectrum competitng against Mygale cars? Why did Exclusive Autosports win multiple titles against Mygales in Canada when they were running every race?

If Spectrums were run by KHilll or Phelfry, they would be winning too. Do you guys forget about the driver & prep of the cars? Did you even discuss it?

[reidhazelton]

Ok I call BS on this whole deal....

let’s say the data you have shows the pods created more downforce then the skinner pods as the CRB is saying. These pods are wider & are creating more drag. So what does that equate to? Does drag in a low hp car such as a FF cause more issues then downforce? Did the CRB take any of that into consideration? If so what is the correlation? If I draft with a narrow sidepod Mygale I gain 1 mph over non draft. If I draft with a wide sidepod Mygale I gain 3 mph. What does that tell you?

I call BS on this whole deal because first a 25 lb weight penalty was applied & now you have to take a saw to your car because I can only assume people didn’t like the approach that was taken & don’t like to admit they may have made a mistake.

Everyone can clearly check they FRP history for laps & laps records, it is about 60% Mygale & 40% Spectrums. One was my car so that doesn’t count for wisepods. My numbers are slightly off as I believe there is swift in there or other car but overall pretty close. Now the majority of the teams are running Mygales, for a few years Spectrums were run but mostly Mygales. If they really had the advantage all laps records would be widepod.

Im sorry but this is a BS call as others have also indicated they don’t have Mygale wind tunnel info either.

Feel free to join.

Who says a wider pod has to make more drag? Why is it assumed it has to be just as tall, and not thinner. Same frontal area, more width. A la Novak's FB pod which is why I referenced it above.

Again, there are other widepod cars than Mygale. One does not need to have every type of wide pod car, back to back with identical narrow pods to arrive at an answer. Do you need to dyno every Fit engine on the planet to know what they make for HP? If a Swift with a Ford makes 115hp, do we need to dyno it in a VD to know it makes 115hp in a VD?

Why did the Euro rules require a 1" (ish) step to the pods if they don't create a downforce effect?

[reidhazelton]

If Spectrums were run by KHilll or Phelfry, they would be winning too. Do you guys forget about the driver & prep of the cars? Did you even discuss it?

No. And, yes.

[reidhazelton]

Everyone is failing to address a car built in 1995 is not likely to be competitive with a car built in 2017. Where is the logic? Why did Scott Andrews win the FRP series a few years ago in a Spectrum competitng against Mygale cars? Why did Exclusive Autosports win multiple titles against Mygales in Canada when they were running every race?

No, we are not. That is why I said "GIven the pods create a downforce advantage, how 'devastating' would it be for all the cars made to the SCCA rules since the '86 rewrite to potentially have to adapt wide pods to keep competitive in that aspect of design?.

This is not a case of handicapping chassis. That is not the intent, nor the objective. It's to create a single rule set, correct what was missed, and require the Euro cars to abide by the US rules that have been in effect for 30 some years. This topic is considered with all other factors being equal.

[Steve Bamford]

Feel free to join.

Who says a wider pod has to make more drag? Why is it assumed it has to be just as tall, and not thinner. Same frontal area, more width. A la Novak's FB pod which is why I referenced it above.

Again, there are other widepod cars than Mygale. One does not need to have every type of wide pod car, back to back with identical narrow pods to arrive at an answer. Do you need to dyno every Fit engine on the planet to know what they make for HP? If a Swift with a Ford makes 115hp, do we need to dyno it in a VD to know it makes 115hp in a VD?

you have data showing all Mygale widepods being slower in a straight line then Spectrums & others. So there is your more drag. Would you not agree to that? If youre worried about people changing them make a rule saying height needs to match current height, whatever that is, everyone knows now rules are easy to be made or changed.

Your other point on hp makes no sense. You have QS data for the engines when brought in. Only change in the car for hp to the tires would be the gear box. Are all gear boxes blueprinted? All the Pro teams do. Did the slow asses wanker who complained in the first place put the kind of prep in their car as the Pro guys have? I seriously doubt it. Did CRB discuss that?

[Steve Bamford]

No. And, yes.

That’s a very poor answer. Not something I would use to tell a member of board I sat on. Or at the very least I would elaborate.

[reidhazelton]

you have data showing all Mygale widepods being slower in a straight line then Spectrums & others. So there is your more drag. Would you not agree to that?

Your other point on hp makes no sense. You have QS data for the engines when brought in. Only change in the car for hp to the tires would be the gear box. Are all gear boxes blueprinted? All the Pro teams do. Did the slow asses wanker who complained in the first place put the kind of prep in their car as the Pro guys have? I seriously doubt it. Did CRB discuss that?

Downforce makes drag, yes. Boy, it sure would suck to create a situation where two sets of pods were needed right? One for tracks with long straights, and one or tight and slower tracks.

My point with HP is we don't need to dyno an engine in each chassis to know what HP it makes. Same with sidepods, we don't need to wind tunnel every wide pod car to know they create a downforce effect. Just like we don't need to dyno every engine to know they make XXX hp.

This is not result of 'a slow ass wanker who complained'. It was a rule intent that was inadvertent lost in translation at some point in time. This corrects that to what it was before that requirement was lost. Again, see Eakin's history lesson. So no, we did not discuss the 'slow ass wanker'. Who are you talking about? I've not seen a letter from "Member Slow Ass Wanker" in the mix.

Like I have said 3 times now, this is considered with ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL. It's not that hard to do. This type of reasoning is what muddy the waters of discussion. Obviously, there are many factors that compose a winning race effort. That's why we look at things with ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL. Data, like wind tunnels, help. Unless the driver has a head the size of a beach ball, they really don't matter in that environment.

[reidhazelton]

That’s a very poor answer. Not something I would use to tell a member of board I sat on. Or at the very least I would elaborate.

What more would you like to know? Everyone knows, prep/driver/chassis matter. It's so painfully obvious to anyone in even the most arm's-length involvement of racing I didn't think it needed much more than that. Maybe I misunderstood the question.

[Steve Bamford]

Downforce makes drag, yes. Boy, it sure would suck to create a situation where two sets of pods were needed right? One for tracks with long straights, and one or tight and slower tracks.

My point with HP is we don't need to dyno an engine in each chassis to know what HP it makes. Same with sidepods, we don't need to wind tunnel every wide pod car to know they create a downforce effect. Just like we don't need to dyno every engine to know they make XXX hp.

This is not result of 'a slow ass wanker who complained'. It was a rule intent that was inadvertent lost in translation at some point in time. This corrects that to what it was before that requirement was lost. Again, see Eakin's history lesson. So no, we did not discuss the 'slow ass wanker'. Who are you talking about? I've not seen a letter from "Member Slow Ass Wanker" in the mix.

Like I have said 3 times now, this is considered with ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL. It's not that hard to do. This type of reasoning is what muddy the waters of discussion. Obviously, there are many factors that compose a winning race effort. That's why we look at things with ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL. Data, like wind tunnels, help. Unless the driver has a head the size of a beach ball, they really don't matter in that environment.

The data used was to come up with a preconceived conclusion, there is no way it was looked at objectively as you haven’t addressed the addition drag. Frontal area creates drag, thus slower straight line speed. It was said by John LaRue that it was determined the downforce created out weighed the additional drag created by the wider pods. How did you determine that? Please explain as I’m really interested to understand & learn. What data do you have to support that theory?

[Steve Bamford]

What more would you like to know? Everyone knows, prep/driver/chassis matter. It's so painfully obvious to anyone in even the most arm's-length involvement of racing I didn't think it needed much more than that. Maybe I misunderstood the question.

My point was that likely people complaining have very little knowledge of what it takes to run at the front. Reid you do know I guess I should ask if the cars weren’t winning races would this ruling have been applied? Would anyone have written a letter complaining?

[reidhazelton]

The data used was to come up with a preconceived conclusion, there is no way it was looked at objectively as you haven’t addressed the addition drag. Frontal area creates drag, thus slower straight line speed. It was said by John LaRue that it was determined the downforce created out weighed the additional drag created by the wider pods. How did you determine that? Please explain as I’m really interested to understand & learn. What data do you have to support that theory?

Again, for the 3r time, there is no confirmation bias or attempt to do so. No conspiracy, no spooky helicopters.

Wind tunnels are used because they give you the answers to those very questions. Is that downforce worth the drag penalty? Ask the magic wind tunnel and it will tell you. That is how it was determined. John stated the data correctly.

Again, who says the wide pods have to also have more frontal area just because the current cars out there do. Would it not be a bad deal if everyone had to have two sets of pods. One low drag, and one that had a downforce effect?

I bet the car in the photo doesn't have more frontal area than a standard VD but makes more downforce. If one set of pods costs $7500, what would having two sets of pods for different tracks cost? In internet forum figures, it would have to be at least $50k.

[reidhazelton]

My point was that likely people complaining have very little knowledge of what it takes to run at the front. Reid you do know I guess I should ask if the cars weren’t winning races would this ruling have been applied? Would anyone have written a letter complaining?

I do not agree with your first statement. The amount of experience, pro and amateur championships won, and knowledge on the FSRAC/CRB is massive. I'm pretty sure they have a good idea what it takes to win.

Winning or losing was not a consideration. Again, 'all other things being equal' is the generally accepted ideal. Yes, both versions can win. A lot of factors are involved, we get it. I don't know how many times I have to say there is no conspiracy, there is not vendetta against Mygale. It's pretty clear I won't change that opinion so I won't bother to try.

Seacrest, out.

[Steve Bamford]

Again, for the 3r time, there is no confirmation bias or attempt to do so. No conspiracy, no spooky helicopters.

Wind tunnels are used because they give you the answers to those very questions. Is that downforce worth the drag penalty? Ask the magic wind tunnel and it will tell you. That is how it was determined. John stated the data correctly.

Again, who says the wide pods have to also have more frontal area just because the current cars out there do. Would it not be a bad deal if everyone had to have two sets of pods. One low drag, and one that had a downforce effect?

I bet the car in the photo doesn't have more frontal area than a standard VD but makes more downforce. If one set of pods costs $7500, what would having two sets of pods for different tracks cost? In internet forum figures, it would have to be at least $50k.

How is there not flying helicopters when you took a legal car & then added 25 lbs to it, then someone complained & others jumped on & now you made it an illegal car mid this year? I don’t get how you can’t see that as being an issue. Sorry I’m not up on the laws in the US but I know I am legally liable for decisions I make on boards I sit on in Canada, I will have to check on the US Boards I sit on in the AM. I would be hard pressed to make the calls the CRB made as it was adopted by FIA due to safety many years ago with wider pods. Those who argue that it wasn’t are sticking their heads in the sand.

If John stated the data correctly why don’t you tell me what the effect of the drag & lower top speed of the car is? Because you don’t have to so you won’t? You’re telling part of the story, why not give all the details?

You are now talking about further development past what is currently out there, once again you are good at making up rules so why not make them so cars have to conform to how they currently are delivered by Mygale or other manufacturers so you don’t let the genie out of the bottle like you have suggesting above?

[Steve Bamford]

I do not agree with your first statement. The amount of experience, pro and amateur championships won, and knowledge on the FSRAC/CRB is massive. I'm pretty sure they have a good idea what it takes to win.

Winning or losing was not a consideration. Again, 'all other things being equal' is the generally accepted ideal. Yes, both versions can win. A lot of factors are involved, we get it. I don't know how many times I have to say there is no conspiracy, there is not vendetta against Mygale. It's pretty clear I won't change that opinion so I won't bother to try.

Seacrest, out.

are you stating it was the FSRAC/CRB that wrote the letter complaining about the widepod Mygale & not a slow ass wanker as I mentioned earlier?

You state there is no vendetta so why change your 25 lb rule after I wrote a letter to banning the cars altogether? Why not just write back saying we reviewed your letter & agree with our first recommendation? Are you saying now your first recommendation of 25 lbs was wrong? If your first recommendation was wrong perhaps your 2nd recommendation is wrong? Hang on...this is the third rule change on the widepod car as for years they were allowed to run straight up. So which decision was correct by CRB, the 1st, 2nd or 3rd? Or is this a Kent vs Honda arguement? Kent will never win the Runoffs....wait Reid did you win in a...

[problemchild]

So, now the SCCA old boys ring of power are protecting us. Wow!
They "corrected" the rulebook for us.
A complete non-issue has now been fixed.

Not even worth a response, other than to point out that I have 3 complete sets of spare pods in inventory, which means converting 2 cars and taking a big hit in the value of my spare parts. My projection at $15K cost is conservative, and does not factor in much of the BS. $3K for Beasely parts and $1200 for radiators before any labor or internal hardware, and $5K per car will come quickly.

Anybody can look at the pictures on my website and make their own assessment of which aero package they would want when running in a pack of FFs and trying to complete passes to stay at the front of that pack. That the Bamford and K-hill cars have spent the money to convert from FIA safety pods to SCCA-spec pods says it all. If those cars want to add downforce, they can now take advantage of the SCCA floor rules which will generate much more downforce than the FIA safety pods ever will. Also might be worth noting which car you would prefer to be in if in an accident involving heavy side impact.

As Jay and Reid should know, the FB sidepod/floor rules are totally different from the FIA rules so any comparison is irrelevant and misleading to people trying to understand the situation. I would object strongly to allowing open rules on wide side pods/floors. That has never been the issue here, although I think that ignorance has fueled the situation. Everything was good until the SCCA got involved in fixing a non-problem. Now they are trying to make it worse.

[problemchild]

As noted in another thread, there is empirical data available that confirms blue is faster than other colors.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/s...est-color.html

Why are we not handicapping or banning blue cars?

[Chris Livengood]

Is there any documentation from the FIA (primary source) regarding the step?

If not, has anybody produced downforce numbers in the wind tunnel comparing stepped pods to those that aren't? Even if there is data to this effect, given that the data was produced on just one model/brand isn't that evidence at most anecdotal? On the other hand, it should be fairly simple to generate a sound statistical analysis based on race finishes, fast laps, etc.

[problemchild]

Even if there is data to this effect, given that the data was produced on just one model/brand isn't that evidence at most anecdotal?.

Has anybody produced downforce numbers for the variation of cars running in SCCA spec? How do those values compare to FIA safety pods on various cars? Any decent car is going to be generating downforce from the floor, except that with the SCCA specs, you can adjust/interchange components to tune downforce. The only tuning with FIA safety pods is by adjusting rake. Again, disadvantage. Perhaps the SCCA can find an engineer to explain what conclusive data is.

Anecdote: 4 races at Homestead and Sebring. FIA safety pods 1 win and 0 poles.

[John Robinson II]

I am aware of the 25 pound weight "adjustment" but where did the mid year "no longer allowed" rule come in to play?

john

Greg,
your comment on the results is kind of misleading as the pole times were done in a draft situation. I think I was the only front runner whose times were done alone. even during the races no one was able to break free. these cars are now very dependent on drafting. from my observations, I was the only one able to complete a draft aided pass. none of the mygales were able to come around me where as I could pull out and get completely past them. so now, as it was suggested on the grid at homestead, should we penalize the swifts because they are so narrow?

[chrisH]

I am aware of the 25 pound weight "adjustment" but where did the mid year "no longer allowed" rule come in to play?

john

John,

The February Prelims released by SCCA state all cars must meet the 95cm max width by 7/1/2018, regardless of chassis make.

"In response to recent comments, the CRB recommends a 7/1/2018 implementation date instead of theoriginal 1/1/2018 date. Cars running under the Alternate Vehicle Allowance that do not meet the maximumwidth as described in 9.1.1.B.4.C must run at a minimum weight of 1125lbs.Commencing 7/1/2018 all cars, including those which are permitted under the Alternate Vehicle Allowance,must meet the maximum width requirements of 9.1.1.B.4.C and the applicable minimum weight as describedin 9.1.1.B.20."

Chris

[Jnovak]

The data used was to come up with a preconceived conclusion, there is no way it was looked at objectively as you haven’t addressed the addition drag. Frontal area creates drag, thus slower straight line speed. It was said by John LaRue that it was determined the downforce created out weighed the additional drag created by the wider pods. How did you determine that? Please explain as I’m really interested to understand & learn. What data do you have to support that theory?

steve. Your statement above is incorrect. If it were true you would not see tons of race cars always trying for more Df. Df is critical to improved lap times.

Lets just say that the FF car that had the most downforce was 1 mph slower on the straight but was .5 mph faster through each corner. What would happen to the lsp time?

Physics anyone?