bodywork lateral protrusions

[jemartin144]

I saw a post about something similar to this question on facebook but i never really saw an answer. Does the rule 9.d make the floor on the KBS illegal? It sticks out more than 1", but does it not fall into this rule because its not "between" the front and rear wheels? It would seem strange if it did make it illegal given the number of KBS's on the track.

Im asking because Im redoing the floor on my car and wondering if i should be planning to remove it. Thank you

d. Along the outer edge of the required sidepods between the front and rear wheels, lateral protrusions of
the bottom or floor of the sidepods are allowed, provided that they do not extend more than one inch
beyond the floor under the required sidepods, and provided that the overall length and width of the car
conforms to the dimensions provided in these rules.

Note: the part im asking about is the triangular part with the clamp in the bottom of the picture.

[cjsmith]

Your car is fine. If you take a straight edge and put it on the bottom surface of the car, you can't have more than 1" vertical variance between the front and rear axle center line, this particular rule doesn't pertain to horizontal length. The intent of the rules is so people aren't creating down force or a low pressure area under the car by tapering the under side of the pan or side pods. You may find that you get a slight increase in cooling capacity with those extensions but may also see a slight increase in drag.

Chris

[Jnovak]

Your car is fine. If you take a straight edge and put it on the bottom surface of the car, you can't have more than 1" vertical variance between the front and rear axle center line, this particular rule doesn't pertain to horizontal length. The intent of the rules is so people aren't creating down force or a low pressure area under the car by tapering the under side of the pan or side pods. You may find that you get a slight increase in cooling capacity with those extensions but may also see a slight increase in drag.

Chris

i think your refrring to the flat bottom rule and he is asking for clarity on the aluminum part just in front of the sidepod which is flush with the bottom.

The rule he is referencing is intended to prevent wide strips around the side pods and sports car nosed cars.

I think that you should write a letter to the crb asking for clarification on this issue.

https://www.crbscca.com

[cory mcleod]

The rule update last year was specifically written by the Ad Hoc Committee to ensure that cars with the triangular extensions in front of the sidepods (KBS, Invader, Red Devil) remain legal with no modifications. The triangular extension is not "along the outer edge of the required sidepods" so it is not covered by the new 1" lateral protrusion limit.

Cory

[Jnovak]

The rule update last year was specifically written by the Ad Hoc Committee to ensure that cars with the triangular extensions in front of the sidepods (KBS, Invader, Red Devil) remain legal with no modifications. The triangular extension is not "along the outer edge of the required sidepods" so it is not covered by the new 1" lateral protrusion limit.

Cory

i know that that was clearly the intent Cory but i spoke to the f500 tech runoffs inspector and he felt that the wording left it open to interpretation.

He ignored it at the runoffs but asked that the fsrac clarify the matter.

This requires a letter to get the process started.

[jemartin144]

ok, thank you for the input. I will consider writing a letter.

Looking at it, what is the difference between "submitting a request/input" and getting a "rules clarification" on https://www.crbscca.com, because a rules clarification costs $300?

[Jnovak]

ok, thank you for the input. I will consider writing a letter.

Looking at it, what is the difference between "submitting a request/input" and getting a "rules clarification" on https://www.crbscca.com, because a rules clarification costs $300?

that is a totally different system. Just write the letter

[cory mcleod]

i know that that was clearly the intent Cory but i spoke to the f500 tech runoffs inspector and he felt that the wording left it open to interpretation.

He ignored it at the runoffs but asked that the fsrac clarify the matter.

This requires a letter to get the process started.

If that was the same tech inspector from the 2015 Runoffs who couldn't comprehend that my 593 did not come from the factory with a balance tube, then I'm not surprised. I know tech is a tough thankless job, but some of the inspectors have a level of incompetence and ability to make clear rules unclear that astounds me.

I will submit a letter.

Cory

[Jnovak]

If that was the same tech inspector from the 2015 Runoffs who couldn't comprehend that my 593 did not come from the factory with a balance tube, then I'm not surprised. I know tech is a tough thankless job, but some of the inspectors have a level of incompetence and ability to make clear rules unclear that astounds me.

I will submit a letter.

Cory

Cory you may not know this but that tech guy goes to about 8-10 races a year on his own nickle so that f500 racers can race.

[cory mcleod]

Cory you may not know this but that tech guy goes to about 8-10 races a year on his own nickle so that f500 racers can race.

Even with the exaggeration, I get your point, and appreciate all volunteers that make SCCA races happen. What happened at the 2015 Runoffs was totally unnecessary and unforgivable. I will always be grateful for your help, because that's the only way the situation (that never should have existed in the first place) got resolved correctly. Maybe I'm petty, but I will also always feel like I was robbed of many good memories from what will probably be my best ever Runoffs because I was dealing with a totally incorrect tech issue for most of the week.