CM Rules Cleanup/Simplify

[-pru-]

In an effort to cleanup and simplify CM rules, letter #33423 has been submitted to the Solo Events Board (SEB).

Letter ID Number: #33423
Title: CM Rule Cleanup/Simplify
Class: CM
Request:
Cleanup/Simplify the SCCA National Solo Rules Appendix A MODIFIED CLASS C (CM) rules as outlined below.

~ Remove the following from paragraph A:
“Within the limitations of the GCR, additional frame bracing, suspension and steering changes, relocation of ancillary components (radiators, batteries, etc.), and their associated mounting brackets is permitted. Nothing in these rules is to be construed as overruling any GCR construction requirements or limitations except for those safety items which the Solo® Rules do not require. The purpose of these rules is to maintain the value of these cars for Club Racing and therefore their market value, and to prevent special Solo®-only Formula F vehicles.”

Given that CM specifically calls out that Formula F must be GCR-compliant, the above wording is verbose and unnecessary.

~ Remove the following section (3):
“3. Only cars produced by the following manufacturers are eligible for FF in this class: ADF, Alexis, Anson, Caldwell, Citation, Crossle, Du lon, Eagle, Elden, Forsgrini, Gemini, Hawke, Konig-Heath, LeGrand, Lola, Lotus, March, Merlyn, Mondiale, Piper, PRS, Reynard, Royale, Stohr, Swift, Tiga, Titan, Van Diemen, Winkleman, and Zink. The SEB may add to this list at any time, effective upon notification of the membership.”

That is, ALL GCR-compliant Formula F should be eligible for CM; there is no need keep and/or maintain the above listing.

Thank you for your consideration.

Chris Pruett
50 CM
1985 Swift DB1

[Gary Godula]

In an effort to cleanup and simplify CM rules, letter #33423 has been submitted to the Solo Events Board (SEB).

Chris,

I have to disagree on both counts as both paragraphs appear to be present to account for Formula Ford vehicle homologation and the ability to move the car between full GCR compliance and Solo configuration while maintaining its fully homologated status.

The first paragraph states that auxiliary items may be moved or relocated. Without this paragraph, these items would not be allowed to be moved or relocated from the vehicle's original homologated state. Think of adding side pods to your DB-1 or me relocating the radiator to the nose of my car and removing the side pods. There are reasons that someone might want to do that, but the vehicle still needs to retain its homologation status and crash-worthiness.

The second paragraph basically states what vehicles, by brand, have been fully homologated. This prevents the creation of a Solo special. There are cars in club racing that have been so heavily modified that they have been rebranded and rehomologated. The intent is to prevent the same sort of vehicle being created strictly for autocross purposes. If someone wants to go that route, they are able to pursue it in AMod or BMod, but not in CMod. While vehicle homologation may not be specifically required in CMod, it is implied.

I personally would veto both suggestions as unnecessary and potentially opening, or closing, vehicle construction loopholes.

[Jim Garry]

I agree with Gary. The purpose of the quoted wording is an attempt to prevent a Formula F "special" from being created.

[R. Pare]

You misunderstand homologation.

The only things homologation are concerned about are the general construction per GCR requirements for that class - tube frame per the GCR - the fuel cell and enclosure, cockpit opening, the roll hoop construction per the GCR and any other mandatory safety items. Radiator location, whether or not the car has or had sidepods, etc, and other ancillary items are not controlled by homologation, so they are free to be moved/changed/deleted at any time, as long as they do not pose a safety issue or reside outside of the vehicle maximum dimensions.

And yes, a Solo Special FF could be made right now or even with those paragraphs removed, and be perfectly legal, as long as it met the GCR requirements for the class.

[TedV]

so... who wants to build a CM FF that does not have a chassis plate?

Honestly it is cheaper to buy a chassis on the list for the starting point as you get all the parts and can then just work on the stiff chassis and suspension details. I have laughed at this rule for years along with the statement "any formula car is rebuildable if you have the chassis plate".

In autocross tech, no one has ever looked for homologation, log book (don't need em), verified a chassis plate (that I've seen) or even measured tubing thickness to verify it meets GCR spec. Wheelbase gets asked maybe when rolling over the scales, but has anyone ever compared that to the original wheelbase of said chassis? Hmmm, a 7/8th scale FF would still be GCR compliant. Smokey Yunick would do that just to get away with it.

I am inclined to keep the approved chassis list as the rules are unless:
1) There have been GCR compliant FF cars people want to compete in that have been denied. It is easier to point out the chassis plate than attempt a discussion that the chassis is GCR compliant.
2) If you take a car on the list, say Swift DB1, roll structure meets the GCR which is beyond the Solo Appendix C requirements, the suspension pick up points get modified to remove a low speed push and the car is not allowed to autocross any more. I've never seen that be the case as the car would still be GCR compliant.
3) The MAC is being pressured to reduce the length of the rules and the paragraphs of rules as written now are superfluous to the "must be GCR compliant" rule but it gives people a good feeling about no "autocross specials" when folks have been building GCR compliant autocross FF specials for years.

[R. Pare]

"Chassis Plates" are not required in FF, nor part of the homologation requirements - in fact, the FF/FC requirements only state that homologation MAY be required, with the need of referencing 9.2.2 to see if it is necessary. ANYBODY could build a solo special from the ground up or through heavy modification of an existing chassis, as long as it still passes all of the GCR requirements for that class. Take an existing chassis and modify it enough to be barely recognizable as having even one of the original tubes, and you may get questioned a lot by tech, but as long as it passes the GCR, it is legal without being re-homologated - especially if it is still called by the original manufacturers name - but even changing the name does not require re-homologation.

[R. Pare]

If I were to suggest a rule improvement for CM, I would get tire warmers and blankets on tires in between runs banned. While it won't totally cure the performance handicap a single driver car has compared to cars with multiple drivers, it would certainly help.

Actually, I'd make the between-runs blankets banned for only the multi-driver cars!

[Jim Garry]

If I were to suggest a rule improvement for CM, I would get tire warmers and blankets on tires in between runs banned. While it won't totally cure the performance handicap a single driver car has compared to cars with multiple drivers, it would certainly help.

Actually, I'd make the between-runs blankets banned for only the multi-driver cars!

Tire warmers are not allowed in SCCA Solo.

Blankets are allowed.

[Jim Garry]

As for simplifying the CM rules ... within Appendix A the FF portion is shorter than all but AM and EM. It's the Solo Vee section that adds the vast majority of the bulk and no one is suggesting getting rid of those cars. Simplifying the FF portion of CM is unnecessary. It's almost as simple as the AMod rules. The main quote from the CM rules is "The purpose of these rules is to maintain the value of these cars for Club Racing and therefore their market value, and to prevent special Solo®-only Formula F vehicles."

Leaving this rule in place is a reasonable non-action as it presents a base philosophical statement.

[lowside67]

If I were to suggest a rule improvement for CM, I would get tire warmers and blankets on tires in between runs banned. While it won't totally cure the performance handicap a single driver car has compared to cars with multiple drivers, it would certainly help.

Actually, I'd make the between-runs blankets banned for only the multi-driver cars!

This is backwards, tire blankets will help single driver cars more than dual-driven ones, given that there is twice as much time between the car running on course compared to a dual driven car.

-Mark

[Gary Godula]

So I still question what good tire blankets are or were. Years ago, one of my codrivers went to great lengths to make a tight fitting set of blankets for the Reynard, and I constantly checked the tire temps with and without the tire blankets. The tires were always warmer without the tire blankets with whatever sunshine was available shining on them. Even running first heat on a colder and not very sunny day, the tires were always warmer without the blankets. We quickly abandon them, and I never used them after that experiment.

That said, I see no purpose in changing the current CMod rules. Part of the appeal of the class is the rules stability, which tends to bring parity and certainly reduces costs. Rules changes usually has costs associated with them, either by forcing an upgrade or parts change, or by forcing a change to the new "hot set-up" to be or remain "competitive". It doesn't matter whether you are competing in Club Racing, Solo, Rally, Rally Cross, or any other form of racing, rules changes means someone has to pay for something, which means that the rules change has to have some purpose. Right now, I do not see a purpose in anything that is being proposed.

To continue and grow the class, we need more cars, and really need more drivers, and more people sharing cars, both in the open and ladies classes. To do that, we need more open discussion on events and bringing cars out, more comradery, and more car sharing. We do not rules changes.

[Gary Godula]

You misunderstand homologation.

The only things homologation are concerned about are the general construction per GCR requirements for that class - tube frame per the GCR - the fuel cell and enclosure, cockpit opening, the roll hoop construction per the GCR and any other mandatory safety items. Radiator location, whether or not the car has or had sidepods, etc, and other ancillary items are not controlled by homologation, so they are free to be moved/changed/deleted at any time, as long as they do not pose a safety issue or reside outside of the vehicle maximum dimensions.

And yes, a Solo Special FF could be made right now or even with those paragraphs removed, and be perfectly legal, as long as it met the GCR requirements for the class.

So Richard, I am curious about the homologation purpose and process. How does one apply for vehicle or chassis homologation, who performs the inspection and approves the homologation, and what purpose does it fulfill in the vehicle authorization process? I see cars like Steve Roux's Wynvern (which apparently started life as a European Spec Renault chassis) and Mike Sauce's rebranded and highly modified Van Diemen, and I am curious how those chassis' are inspected, homologated, and authorized to be issued a log book and be allowed to race. When my Reynard was converted from FC to FF, it had to be rehomologated, so I assume that the homologation is class-specific. What prevents vehicle modifications after the homologation is completed?

Log books and therefore homologation paperwork is not a requirement in Autocross/solo, so how would any such chassis construction rules be enforced other than limiting the allowed vehicles to the authorized constructor brands whose vehicles were all previously homologated?

[R. Pare]

There is plenty of info in the GCR about the homologation process that you can look up. Read 9.2.2 A quick read of all of the logbook requirements (9.2.1) is a bit confusing, so I'd have to spend a lot more time digesting what the requirements say nowadays.

Homologation in FF and FC used to be mandatory, (if I remember correctly - we always sent in the forms and pictures for every car), but the GCR now reads it as "may be required", so my interpretation would be that you really do not HAVE to submit anything for a brand newly constructed car. I would recommend that you do so anyway, if for no reason than covering your arse.

However, if you do send in the required forms and pictures for a new car, the "inspection" will really be only someone in Topeka looking at the forms and pictures and asking questions if they have any. Not sure about a cars first tech, though - been too long for me to remember, and that was always left up to the car owner. There is still a mandatory annual tech requirement in the GCR, but it looks like the solo rules list it as "optional", whatever that is supposed to imply (required by an event maybe?)

If you modify a car from one class to another, it looks to me that the cars will indeed need to be homologated - which is really nothing more than the club wanting to have paperwork showing that the car meets the rules for that class. I'd have to read that section of the homologation rules again.

Once a car is homologated, or just having the first tech inspection done and a log book issued, you can do danged near any modification you want to it, including entirely new ancillary things like the bodywork shaping, different radiator locations, different transmission, frame modifications, etc. You can also modify the mandatory safety stuff that the homologation papers cover, AS LONG as the mandated items are still there AND follow the rule requirements. Many of our cars had entirely new fuel cells and enclosures, entirely new suspension with a lot of frame mods, entirely different front attenuators, and even modified cockpit openings, but re-homologation was not necessary, since the cars still followed all of the rules for those items. Not sure what those owners did in updating their logbook to show the modifications that were done, but most likely the annual tech inspector wanted those mods logged.

While having log books are not required per the solo rules, solo car still have to obey all other GCR requirements unless the solo rules state otherwise - like for logbooks and spec tires.

The only other thing I can find in the solo rules about annual inspection is that the tech inspector may require a re-inspection be done if a car was modified after the inspection was done.

[R. Pare]

Tire warmers are not allowed in SCCA Solo.

Blankets are allowed.

Actually, supplemental heating of the tires is indeed allowed ( 6.1.1 Tire Temperature Management), but must cease 30 minutes before the first car of a run group starts his run. Of course, that can be rather hard to guess accurately!

[Gary Godula]

Hi Richard,

Thank you for clarifying the homologation process. I was not sure if it was an actual physical tech inspection of the vehicle or production run of vehicles, or, as you are indicating, a documentation and review process to ensure that all of the class and construction/safety requirements are met as the vehicle(s) is/are constructed or revised.

Since both FC and FF now have several engine choices, do the vehicle need to be rehomologated if they change power plant type, but remain in the same class (ie Honda for Kent, Zetec for Pinto)?

When performing the annual club racing tech inspection, the only time I have seen the inspector pull out the tube size/thickness gauge is when the car was repaired after a major incident or if there was some question on the homologation. For those of us with repeated annual techs, it is literally a 10 minute process....go thru the safety gear, check all the tags, verify the fire system charge, check the rain light and kill switch function, and review any changes and recorded incidents from the previous tech.

In solo, basically the initial rules were written around the premise of an older retired Formula Ford being used for autocross, and the solo rules state that the car needed to be GCR compliant with the exception of not needing a fuel cell, fire system. current belts, rain lights, mirrors, and the such, and that the spec radial tire rule with associated minimum weight increase was waived. Log books and the related homologation paperwork are also not required or obviously tracked as it is in club racing. Tech inspection varies with SCCA region/sponsoring car club as they may have an annual solo tech inspection available to streamline the at-event process, but it is obviously not real thorough as most solo tech inspectors do not know how to tech a non-street car.

Several of us were bouncing our cars between club racing and solo constantly and thus the cars would always be kept in full GCR compliance. This used to be a quick conversion (at least with my Reynard) prior to the damned spec radial tire implementation, with only the gearing and chassis set-up changing between the two disciplines. Change the gears, the springs, the rear bar, remove/install the droop limiter, realign, install the R25 or R35 tires, and 6 man hours later the car was back in the trailer ready for the next event. I have run both disciplines successfully on the same weekend. That process is a lot more involved now due to the radial tires requiring a lot more changes on my car (read front roll center/front bar/castor/upright/brake changes). The newer cars with the LD200 gearbox need the final drive changed between club racing and solo as the ultra-low integral shaft gearing is not available as it is for the Mk9, so those vehicles tend to be dedicated to one discipline or the other throughout a season.

[R. Pare]

Yea - the homologation "inspection" always, in my experience, was just a paperwork process. The only full tech inspections I ever saw were after crashes (roll bar thickness), and the very first annual. Annuals, 10 years later, when having been done by the same guy always, was nothing more than checking that the fire bottle was full, and that there was nothing mechanically unsafe on the car - they were always interested to see what the mods were, but could care less about them as far as something needing inspection and approval.

Interesting question about switching engines - most like all the annual tech guy would care about is that it got noted in the logbook, and he would check whatever to make sure that all the components he could see were within what the rules allowed.

[R. Pare]

This is backwards, tire blankets will help single driver cars more than dual-driven ones, given that there is twice as much time between the car running on course compared to a dual driven car.

-Mark

Which is exactly what my last sentence implies.

[Bill Schmidt]

If you want to cleanup CM rules, kick out the Solo Vees and get them their own class to run in. "Vee-Mod" sounds good. I bet the vees would come out of the woodwork like roaches, if there was a fair playing field for them.