homologation numbers
I can't begin to imagine what the objective value of homologation numbers is
and how they relate to the health of FF. a case can probably be made for
homologation numbers being a useful soundbite for those advocating F600
but the objective value to conversations about FF escapes me. hopefully
the cash flow from homoloation fees and 8.1.4 requests (aka: secret
binding opinions from the gatekeepers for money) isn't being used to drive
policy decisions!!
if there's objective merit to using homologation numbers as a metric to
influence decisions, I'd recommend the club implement some overdue
corrective action on its rules and rules change process to improve the
numbers. I am aware of a F1000 project that was well along and
terminated because of the state of the rules (key undefined terms and
rules that drive performance that are not objectively verifiable) and the
capricious rules change process being used. why would anyone spend
$50,000 to $100,000 to design and develop a car when it's possible/bordering
on likely the rules will be changed when a few folks converting FC cars
wake-up and begin whining about the rules as written. multiple posts
here at ApexSpeed and e-mails to the CRB on F1000 bodywork opening
were ignored and/or not understood which apparantly didn't prevent decisions
from being made and reversed in less than 90 days.................. in industry
the better leaders and good managers recognized or learned early in their
careers that people with un-popular or politically incorrect positions needed to
be taken seriously, more often than not they were right!! the friendly
encouragement offered by the majority here with their occasional barbs is
nothing compared to the politics of the office where major contracts, careers,
promotions, and/or raises were at stake.
if homologation numbers are important get some professional help to develop
objectively verifiable versions of:
D.6.a what is a monoque-type structure ?
D.6.d what does "its curvature shall not exceed 1 inch" mean ?
D.7.c what are "wings and other airfoil devices which create aerodynamic downforce" ?
D.7.c what are "extension of the undertray or attached components for the
purpose of downforce or ground effects" ? are members of the Tech staff
being given training on deriving "intent"....?
D.7.e what are "diffuser undertrays or venturi tunnels" ?
what is a "diffuser" ?
integrity needs to be returned to the FF rules change process. secret conversations
where the opinion of several smart people is allowed to be the basis for a change to a
key 30 plus year old rule is unacceptable if the continued well being of FF is the
objective. rules stability has been a cornerstone of FF for years and I can't imagine
how a fundamental engine rule was approved that best-on-best only postpones the
need for sleeves ???
what's the chances the rules remain unchanged if someone combined the ignored
flat bottom geometry posts here at ApexSpeed and the layman's explanation of the
relationship between flat bottom inclination and forward migration of the center of
pressure in Simon McBeath's Aerobytes column found in the February 2007 issue of
Racecar Engineering and showed up with a diffuserless flat bottom car compliant with
the rules as currently written??? there's probably other people out there that after
reading the rules as currently written don't see a Stohr or a Phoenix or a Gloria or
a VD conversion............................
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
Reply With Quote