FIA Safety Pods

[stonebridge20]

No aero advantage due to the high of the side pod”

I’m sure high is meant as height but remember French is the native language.

Is that statement about the 40mm step pods or the flat bottom pods ?

[Steve Bamford]

Is that statement about the 40mm step pods or the flat bottom pods ?

Not to my knowledge but for fairness & transparency from my end I will ask.

[Steve Bamford]

Is that statement about the 40mm step pods or the flat bottom pods ?

Here is what I asked: Over here in North America some are saying the wide pods have a downforce advantage when run low compared to 95 cm wide or less width cars. Is there an advantage with the flat bottom running low as possible over a narrow pod car.

Answer: No Advantage.

[SteveG]

...

Answer: No Advantage.

So, y'all realize that the the 25 lbs was added because of the potential to generate downforce not because they already do right?

To actually build side pods that generate low drag downforce, someone will need to spend a boatload of money on aerodynamic development, composite building and wind tunnel time. The 25 lbs was added to discourage those someones that have those boatloads of money.

Steve

[stonebridge20]

Here is what I asked: Over here in North America some are saying the wide pods have a downforce advantage when run low compared to 95 cm wide or less width cars. Is there an advantage with the flat bottom running low as possible over a narrow pod car.

Answer: No Advantage.

Are they willing to share the data that brought them to the conclusion that there's "no advantage" ?

[Bob Wright]

SteveG- see post #70

My understanding is the British rules were specifically written to not allow someone to design in an aero advantage. I believe the Mygales are designed to those rules.

[Steve Bamford]

So, y'all realize that the the 25 lbs was added because of the potential to generate downforce not because they already do right?

To actually build side pods that generate low drag downforce, someone will need to spend a boatload of money on aerodynamic development, composite building and wind tunnel time. The 25 lbs was added to discourage those someones that have those boatloads of money.

Steve

Unfortunately that is not how it has been presented for potential, it was that it does actually do so. At least this is how I read it. As I mentioned before Bob's wording could be added to GCR to avoid the issue of development.

[Steve Bamford]

Now this is just the manufactures quote, take it however you wish but here is more information.

Are they willing to share the data that brought them to the conclusion that there's "no advantage" ?

Unfortunately I do not have that info & are just passing along the manufactures message. I did make sure I said early to take it however you wish as it does come from Mygale.

[Chris Livengood]

I have attached some older copies of the British Formula Ford (Duratec and combined) rules. It is worth noting that from as far back as 2007 the side pod bottoms had to be within 1 inch of the floor. Moreover, British Formula Ford rules it declares that all cars built post 1/1/1996, their side pods floors must be within 1 inch of the undertray. Also, downforce and "downthrust" are explicitly prohibited. There is no mention of the FIA in the lateral protection section, and in fact Ford Publishes these rules, not the FIA. Additionally, it doesn't appear that there was much European Formula Ford activity post 2005, with exception of the British series which remains active. The only references to wide side pods rules I can find specifically state that they are the result of British rules, no reference to the FIA was made. The GCR (2013 copy) actually references "Cars complying with English FF Rules" specifically referencing the 2010 English rulebook (1 inch deviation). I'll keep searching, but there doesn't seem to be any FIA primary source data at all.


Wide pod reference on the RF06 - http://www.thekentlives.com/index.ph...aford/thecars/
Wide pod reference on the 2005 Ray - http://www.rayracecar.com/about_us.htm

2007 rulebook (too large to attach) -https://web.archive.org/web/20070519012430/http://www.britishformulaford.co.uk:80/regs/2007FFDuratec1600Version01.pdf

[Chris Livengood]

The FIA regulations from 2010 and 2015.

[John LaRue]

I am out of pocket so to speak for the next two weeks, but thought I would try to clarify a few things that seem to have been skewed while I have a moment.

The wind tunnel information was provided and considered by the FSRAC before ANY action was taken. This information, as with all information which is provided to the Club, is treated as proprietary and confidential.

The requirement that all cars meet the long standing overall body width requirement (elimination of the spec line allowance for deviation if running under the UK rule) was announced in the 5/2017 Fastracks. Due to some logistical issues the rule was not formally voted on until the Convention earlier this month. The rule will become effective 7/1/2018.

The FSRAC is comprised of accomplished individuals who have devoted their time and energy to this Club on behalf of other members. They make their decisions after serious debate and consideration. In this instance they had good information and thought the proper thing to do was to get all of the cars back onto the same set of rules so that moving forward there would be no basis for concern that a wide or narrow car was advantaged or disadvantaged. Like the rule or not, it moots the discussion. It is time to get back to racing.


Regards,

John

[jharvey]

Nah, we need another 4 pages of arguing about this. What else am I supposed to read during lunch?

[Tifosi]

[Steve Demeter]

Kind of presents a paradox doesn't it??

[Tifosi]

Kind of presents a paradox doesn't it??

Cover is only valid until 07/01/18

[alangbaker]

I am out of pocket so to speak for the next two weeks, but thought I would try to clarify a few things that seem to have been skewed while I have a moment.

The wind tunnel information was provided and considered by the FSRAC before ANY action was taken. This information, as with all information which is provided to the Club, is treated as proprietary and confidential.

The requirement that all cars meet the long standing overall body width requirement (elimination of the spec line allowance for deviation if running under the UK rule) was announced in the 5/2017 Fastracks. Due to some logistical issues the rule was not formally voted on until the Convention earlier this month. The rule will become effective 7/1/2018.

Respectfully, no, it wasn't.

What was said in that (and I'd already checked this before and went back to double-check) was:

'For 2018, the CRB will recommend that all FF cars must meet the standard SCCA bodywork dimensions.'

That is a far different thing than announcing a rule change.

Then there is NOTHING in any SCCA publication about the rule change being accepted until the February Fastrack.

The FSRAC is comprised of accomplished individuals who have devoted their time and energy to this Club on behalf of other members. They make their decisions after serious debate and consideration. In this instance they had good information and thought the proper thing to do was to get all of the cars back onto the same set of rules so that moving forward there would be no basis for concern that a wide or narrow car was advantaged or disadvantaged. Like the rule or not, it moots the discussion. It is time to get back to racing.

Of the dedication and good intentions of the people on the FSRAC, I have no doubt.

That doesn't mean that, in this case, they haven't botched things up pretty badly.

As you say, it's time to get back to racing and the first official word that cars that people fully expected to run this year would be illegal is in the February Fastrack. And the last anyone heard that it MIGHT be ruled that way was in May of last year.

As it stands today, the only rulebook that a new competitor in the class can get will still tell him that his English FF is completely legal.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think that's very fair.

[Chris Livengood]

Brings a tear to the eye really.

My lunch breaks would have been a lot more boring had we been able to admit that there was no FIA evidence and that the change really had to do with a slip up from several months back.

[zangyomotorsports]

Hi,
I just received the 1-JAN-2010 1st revision Formula Ford Kent rules from the UK (F4 Championship Technical Delegate) as called out in the FF GCR. I believe this is the correct set of rules as the SCCA GCR notes: Cars complying with English FF rules; "Car must comply with published English FF regulations (Formula Ford 1600 – Formula Ford Championship of Great Britain: Dated 01/01/2010; Version1)"

[ken bouq]

here is my factory Mygale side pod w built in lateral protection structure . This added
Structure is extremely strong...
It is obvious that someone in England believed safety was important .

Second page of the 2010 english ff rules states.
- no changes have been introduced to the current cars,
Except for the safety requirements of lateral protection structures on 1996 and later cars only.

Also - on page 15..
- 3. Lateral protection structure (with a picture)
(S) maximum width including lateral protection structure.

Wider , safer , pods w lateral protection structures were introduced to the class .
I believe somewhere in this thread , it was somewhat dismissed that wider pods were introduced for safety.

I am no engineer , just a heavy equipment operator , so I'm probably not as brilliant as most on this forum ,
But , if someone t-bones me while i'm racing my FF Mygale for a 5 dollar trophy and a bottle of sparkling wine , common sense
tells "me" , any added protection for my body is better !!! and wider pods w lateral protection structures were added for safety not enhanced performance.

I understand there is still the 1" height confusion , but it's obvious , safety was behind the rule change in English FF ..

See you out there this year w my safer factory wide pods. Personally , I dont give a f"*k about a scca protest DQ , I race for immediate personal enjoyment and nothing else.

Go ahead everyone , start flaming !

[ken bouq]

[problemchild]

It is just such a sad situation. Nobody is affected by this in any way, but a dozen people who invested in the class, and who are now getting screwed. Thanks SCCA!

[Steve Bamford]

The FSRAC is comprised of accomplished individuals who have devoted their time and energy to this Club on behalf of other members. They make their decisions after serious debate and consideration. In this instance they had good information and thought the proper thing to do was to get all of the cars back onto the same set of rules so that moving forward there would be no basis for concern that a wide or narrow car was advantaged or disadvantaged. Like the rule or not, it moots the discussion. It is time to get back to racing.


Regards,

John

what happened to getting all cars back onto the same rule set, see below to what I am referring to. I guess the same rule set lasted for a week or two & now it’s ok to change? Doesn’t this contradict what your rational was above? Please advise if I have taken this out of context to be fair to yourself. I do like the “what do you think”, not sure why this approach couldn’t have been used for the side pods but I’m sure there isn’t a logical answer for that one that I will be given as it’s likely top secret stuff.

A. Formula F
1. Ford Cortina Engine: 1060 lbs.
2. Ford Kent and Honda Fit Engines: 1110 lbs.
3. Cars complying with the English FF rules under the Alternative Allowance Table which exceed the maximum allowable SCCA body width of 95 cm add 25 lbs. Effective July 1, 2018 all FF cars shall be required to meet the maximum allowed width as described in 9.1.1.B.4.c; at such time this provision (3) shall become null and void.
4. Cars running with a sequentially shifted gear box shall add 25 lbs. to minimum weight.
B. Formula Continental
1. Pinto Engine: 1200 lbs.
2. Pinto with aluminum cylinder head: 1200 lbs.
3. Zetec Engine: 1200 lbs.
4. Cars running with a sequentially shifted gear box shall add 25 lbs. to minimum weight.