Aero issues at the runoffs

[John Robinson II]

I now want to lay out what I know, have personally seen or been told (and I will say who told me) about the aero issues and my involvement.

Firstly, there is absolutely no vendetta or malice meant to any of the parties involved. Like I told Tony when I went to talk to him before the protest, this is not personal, this is to get a clarification.

A little history before I ramble on, I built and tested an extension of the floor pan to the center of the rear axle in Jan 06. I tested it at Sebring (which led to the infamous forgot to remove carb cover story) along with the FC and db-1 bodywork. my testing found the FC bodywork had highest top speed, db-1 with extension lowest and it pushed more. Once we saw the layout of last years r/o track decided db-1 would be best. This year because of the added high speed turns and the need to really rotate the car in the tight sections, decided to run FC body with an extension. I tested Wed with that set up. Last run tried it without the pan and it solved the high speed understeer (duh, it works).

It all started for me last session friday, I pulled up on pit road behind Tony for a black flag, as we waited to go out, I saw what looked like a FC diffuser that had been cut off. It appeared from the rear of the car to be much more then a 1" step from the outside plane to the raised inside plane. After helping repair a FV that I made contact with ending my session, I went to Cliff Johnson and asked about tony's diffuser. He then said I needed to talk to Gerald as he had other aero issues.
Gerald showed me pictures of the front of Tony's car. There was an extension of the floor pan/undertray in front of the front axle, people have referred to this as a splitter, dive plane, etc whatever you call it. His biggest problem was that it was what appeared to be carbon fiber which is disallowed in the bodywork rules and led to another issue with carbon fiber mirrors. (side note: the mirrors were ruled as attachments and not bodywork so CF is ok as long as it is not blended into the body making it an integral part of the bodywork). I brought up the issue with the diffuser, which they had not even noticed.

We then proceeded to find the head tech inspector and brought him to Gerald's car to ask specific bodywork questions. The issue of the splitter was shown and he interperted it as an airfoil and not allowable. What we reffered to as a diffuser was interperted to be a venturi tunnel and also not allowed.

On Saturday word then spread around the paddock, at least the south paddock. I found Cliff first thing and he informed me Gerald and the tech guy had been by and he didnt give a sh!t and would take it off. I assume someone told Tony as his car no longer had the piece in front of the axle from the best I could tell.

On Sunday, Tony only ran one or maybe 2 ( dont have our notes and am going from memory) sessions and did not have an extension/undertray/diffuser at all.

race week on seperate post

John

[John Robinson II]

damn, I just spent 2 hours typing the rest only to loose it. i will continue tomorrow as time allows.

John

[Bill Steele]

John,

Thank you for the thoughtful inclusion of the valuable information on your various bodywork/undertray configurations and your impressions of what they did and did not offer on the track. You didn’t have to give away any of those secrets, it is truly sporting of you.

Congratulations on a hard fought and well deserved victory.

Bill Steele

PS - Anyone that might have a problem with a protest on technical grounds, my recommendation is that it should be brought up first thing at their next regular appointment with the therapist.

[M.Sauce]

I have read the GCR and I find a satement that would declare the Van Dieman FF with the extension of the undertray non-compliant."Wings or other airfoil devices which create downforce or ground effects are prohibited. Also"No extension of the undertray or attached components for the purpose of downforce or ground effects are permitted."The GCR area that pertains to Formula Ford starts with the wording,"Formula Ford is a restricted class."Therefore any allowable modifications,changes,or additions are stated here in.IF IN DOUBT ,DON'T. I realize that there is some levity in interpretations ,but the car had a diffuser on it,look at the picture.

[Joby Graham]

So, carbon fiber mirror housings are legal in FF? I was always under the impression that they fell afoul of the "licked by the airstream" rule. I have side fences on the tail of my Swift DB-3/1 FF 1600. Since they are not "aerodynamic devices" (according to a separate thread), could they be deemed "attachments", and therefore be legally made of carbon fiber?

Joby Graham

[Art Smith]

Mike-

in the spirit of levity:

where do I find the wing or airfoil device in the Frog's picture?

what do you think a diffuser is?

are diffusers hardware or an attribute of a wide range of devices (ie: things that diffuse without regard to efficiency/performance)?

can diffuser(s) be found in the 1" flat bottom tolerance between the front and rear axles?

how is purpose determined and what qualifications are required of those that judge for us? as an aside, I've seen some very interesting ideas on the mechanics of aerodynamics posted on this forum among others.....................

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Bill Johnson 42]

Mike - That's exactly why I made the comment in another post that I thought the protest was legit. A few years ago that car wouldn't have turned a lap without paper flying.
.
The problem with the rules as currently written is that they leave things to the interpration of tech and the stewards. As a group, are we smart to put ourselves in that position?

The thing with Kautz was ridiculous. Kephardt had exactly the same thing on his car but since it was constructed differently, it was allowed.

I took my car for a voluntary inspection on Wed after rumors started. After a brief conversation with a very nice tech person, I realized there was no logic involved. He was combining his interpratation of 2 totally different rules that did not apply to what I was doing. For me it wasn't worth the conversation so I just got the saw out and cut parts off my car.

Who is going to judge if something creates downforce or not? We can't verify it so it's just someones opinion.

Since this is my first year in FF, I did actually read the GCR and was really surprised at how open ended the rules on bodywork are. I'm not advocating any agenda on the rules, I just think they need to be updated so everyone has a clear understanding and so we are not left at the mercy of a different persons "opinion" every year at the Runoffs.

[John LaRue]

We went through these same issues in 1999? with Chuck Brewer's car. The car was protested and held in tech for 2 days. I argued the case before the Court of Appeals and in my closing statement explained that while they may not like what they saw, it was by the letter of the rules legal. They declined to penalize Brewer, but noted that they did not want to see it again. The rules were re-written for the next year, but still did not address the problems. We could have taken the very same car out the next year and still had the same arguments to justify its legality.

Art is correct in that things are simply not well defined, they never have been. We have vague loosely worded rules that are subject to interpretation by any number of inspectors who can read into or out of the rule what they want. It is not their fault, it is simply subject to their interpretation. Rulings over the years are not codified so we gain no clarity as to how things should be interpreted or defined. What is ruled legal or illlegal this year is still subject to the same interpretation by different inspectors next season or even at the next event. There is no precedential value to the decisions that asist us in developing the rules.

What is a real travisty is that Richard Pare' re-wrote the entire FF body work rules which resolved the problems with vagueness and lack of definitiions. Those to my knowledge were submitted to the CRB and summarily dismissed. If he still has a draft of the proposal and would be willing to share it much of this would become moot.

[M.Sauce]

Art- By example on almost any FC or S2000 car, the part in question is a diffuser.Maybe not the same aspect ratio or dimension but a diffuser that will make down force.The rules prohibit that.You can argue all you want to and fro with your scientific perspective and it will still be an extension of the under body that makes downforce(diffuser).I am not an engineer nor an aerodynamicist and neither are most competitors that have to interpret the rules.The rules were written(some would say poorly)but with specific intent to limit the making of downforce except for the rear spoiler and the body shape.If you have ever looked at my car it makes downforce, but with the body shape and rear spoiler only.I do however believe there is much better verbage needed to clarify the rules intent.

[Steve Maxwell]

I've been keeping my mouth shut on this topic because i don't want to piss off my friends. However I feel I can offer some, SOME insight on this.

I build a lot of diffusers and I would be willing to discuss with any aerodinamacist that what I saw in the photo was infact a diffuser. It was a very small one but I gaurentee you that it creates down load. Can I prove it? Probably not.

Here's the deal. A flat undertray with a less than 1" deflection upward as it progresses rearward (ie almost flat) will help de-turbulance the airflow=less drag. If you bring that deflection upward toward 1" it will start to stall the airflow causing download. Now, most of that air will spill out the sides because that panel is flat accross its width.

Here is the problem as I see it. As soon as you add side fences or "strakes" along the outer edges to capture that "spilled" air, you have just improved the efficency of that undertray by a large number and I am willing to bet exponentially. The side strakes help really slow that air down and that IS DOWNLOAD. Remove the outer strakes and "boom" it's legal again as long as the plane from horizontal to max height is <1".

I hope this doesn't piss any one off. I wouldn't have protested it; I would have copied it. I'm not judging anyone. The biggest budget doesn't always win but the smartest racers always win.

SEM

[Garey Guzman]

Has anyone looked at the back of the faster F500's? If not, take a look and you might see why the polesitter in F500 was 1 second faster than the polesitter for FF.

If this is the way "wingless" formula cars are going, someone is going to make a bundle making bodywork attachments for this class!

[S Lathrop]

Mike:

You know a diffuser when you see one. I want to build something that I think will improve my car, just as TC did. Exactly what made the part under that car illegal. Was it the vertical sides? It does meet the deviation rule. No where do we have the definition of a diffuser or tunel. Say I built the same thing but had the sides at 45 degrees or maybe I had a continuous curve from one side to the other. When is it a diffuser and just not flat?

This rule is a bad rule. It was a bad rule when it was written. The rule should be written so that there is no interpertation. It either measures correctly or it doesn't.

I use rub strips the length of the outer edges of side pods on my cars. They are 1 inch wide but thinner than allowed under the rules. Some one could protest that the rub strips constitute a tunel. They are there to protect the body work.

As I said, there is not a legal FF out there if some of the rules are interperted strictly.

This needs to be cleaned up.

[John Robinson II]

Has anyone looked at the back of the faster F500's? If not, take a look and you might see why the polesitter in F500 was 1 second faster than the polesitter for FF.

If this is the way "wingless" formula cars are going, someone is going to make a bundle making bodywork attachments for this class!

Garey for an engineer you sure can to do math... F5 pole 1:36.843 FF pole 1:36.863.

Now where is the second you were refering to???????

[John Robinson II]

Steve, after talking to the stewards and seeing the blank look on their face once diffuser was said I knew the only thing the could easily understand, or maybe the only thing I could easily explain, was it was a tunnel. It is easy to define a tunnel as having sides and a top with the bottom being the ground. That is why once the bottom of the diffuser was sealed it was no longer a tunnel. But I still felt it was an extension for the purpose of creating downforce due to the ramp up on the upper surface.

FWIW, I applaude the Coellos for doing what they felt was correct and condemned the other competitors for not doing something other then bitching to each other about it.

Also I think there was 1 and only 1 car at the event that could meet the bodywork rules as written... it was yellow and looked like a damn banana, but after driving the car fri morn I wanted it!

John
P.S. I would still trade BK for it, minus my Butler bullet...but Rollin told me there are better ones in the SE.

[Garey Guzman]

JRII
Please accept my most humble apology. I should have studied your lap times much more closely and paid much more attention to everything you did. I need to quit this job so I can watch your awesomeness more closely!

My mistake was that the F5 got his lap in Q2 I think and I just remembered thinking, "dang, he's going way faster than JRII - how can that be?" I forgot to take the "James Lee" factor into account. I should have know he'd get you faster by Q4.

I'll simplify my statement:
Has anyone looked at the back of the faster F500's? If not, take a look and you might see why the polesitter in F500 was faster than the polesitter in FF.

[M.Sauce]

John- There were many cars at the Runoffs that met the bodywork rules.There were only a few who chose to walk on the wild side.

[jim morgan]

Garey,

For future reference do not praise john, as you have observed in our pit it's what have you done lately, which does not include anything over one day. he is a prior years champion 2008 is undecided.

As far as the Runoff Problem someone with real knowledge should really be empowered per class as chief,(so the competitors can have a baseline) the attitude that is the Pro Bowl of tech lends itself to way too much emphasis on personal vendettas, in 2006 all ff were going to be illegal for exhaust height that was legal all year,this year was at least more interesting due to "innovations"

[Dave Harmison]

I've read what I consider the definitive work on FF rules, "The FF Scrutineer's Handbook" by Shulthies (spelled wrong I'm sure), and this is the argument I'd make:

Is the "diffuser" wider behind the axle than in front? If our court uses precident in decideing cases, this seems to be important.

What makes the bottom of a DB1 tail or an 88 Reynard tail different than a diffuser?

If I made a DB1 tail that was 2" lower than stock is it a diffuser?

6" lower?

At ground level?

I spent seven years doing aero but I'm not a lawyer. When is the bottom of the body a diffuser and when is it just the bottom of the body?

And is the bottom of my Titan Mk5, one of the classic cigar shaped cars, illegal because of its curvature?

[John Robinson II]

Monday was non eventful, other then watching Ethan fo faster and faster while Cliff and I looked at each other saying, dumba$$ should have gone out.

Tuesday, qualify tech, we are checked for max width and reverse gear. I questioned the line chief about the aero issues that I was assured would be checked,cuz aero on a FF is now a hot topic and was directed to the steward of tech. He told me that tech was mainly for safety issues and a few compliance list items, outside of those items it would look like a witch hunt and it was the competitors responsibilty to police for other violations, or at least what we thought were violations. More grumbling in the south paddock but still no action.

Wed, hear through the grape vine that Kephart and Tim Kautz are having problems in tech. I talk to BK and he informs that his issue is a total wrong interpertation of the rules, what tech deemed to be extensions of the undertray/floor pan for the purposes of downforce or ground effects are actually the floor pan and therefore not extensions. I also understand Dan had fun with the inspectors asking them to prove the part actually produces downforce. They are sent on their way with no problems. Kautz's problem I have only heard about second hand, so if anything is not correct please do so. Tech tossed his times because there were added attachments to the side of the bodywork. Basically alum angle was bolted to the sides. I am assuming he was ruled against because it shows no times for wed.
After hearing the tech issues and talking to Larue and others about the history of the diffuser/undertray rule I decide to protest TC. Proceed to his pit where I confront him with what I think is illegal on his car and why and that I am going to protest it. He explains that he has talked to Jeromey Theones and he said his undertray is legal and that the pieces added to the sides of the body are no diferent then the ones formed into the body of all the swifts. I disagree and tell him it is not personal just want to get a ruling, because if this is how they rule, every FF next year will have a diffuser.

I proceed back to the south paddock to talk to Gerald, he says he wants to protest and i volunteer to put up the money. We get the rule book and head off to driver services. We are first sent in to talk to the chief steward, after explaing why we felt the car is illegaland what we are looking for as an outcome, he states he thinks the protest is well found and directs us to the driver advisors to complete the protest form. We once again have to explain everything to them, they explain the protest and appeals process and then help gerald fill out the protest form and instruct me to fill out a witness statement. It is now late and most of the stewards have left so we are informed that we will have to come back tomorrow morn to meet with the court.

Thursday, Gerald and I head back to driver services, Gerald is taken back to the court room to explain the protest. Tc is called and he and I sit in the waiting room making bs small talk. I am called back after Gerald exits and proceed to explain what I saw and why I felt it was illegal. After trying to explain what a diffuser is to the head judge determine it is better to just call it a venturi tunnel (both items were listed in the protest). During this process the head judge determines TC does not need to be called in and he is released, he felt that he would just state the car is legal and a visual inspection after talking to tech personnel is what will be done. Gerald is given a radio and we return to our paddock to get ready for the short afternoon qual session. Several hours later, Gerald comes by and informs me that the protest is upheld because there is no tunnel as a piece of metal now covers the bottom of the diffuser, the money will be returned as it was well found but the part was not as we or others had described it (pictures did not matter).

I did not see what the undertray looked like or had been changed to until race impound, at that time it appeared to me that the tunnel had been removed to make the trailing edge even and it had been curled upwards. On the track it appeared to be way more then 1", in impound it looked pretty close. I have since surmised that the center must not have been securely fastened allowing it to bow downwards or maybe it is an optical illusion due to the different angle it is viewed from in the car.

Either way, I think the rules need to be addressed. There is way to much vagueness and undefined terms that rely on past history for intended interpertations. It has been suggested by numerous people that we look closely at the FV rules as they now have what is considered to be fairly tight rules concerning aero.

It was also suggested to write letters to both the comp board and the F/SR advisory committee.

When we talked to the chief steward he asked what I wanted accomplished by this protest and i told him I wanted a definiton for diffuser so everyone would know what is or is not legal in that aspect. Obviously that did not happen nor will it without us, the competitiors, requesting it from both the F/S advisory comm and the comp board.

John

[John Robinson II]

I've read what I consider the definitive work on FF rules, "The FF Scrutineer's Handbook" by Shulthies (spelled wrong I'm sure), and this is the argument I'd make: I would love a copy of this, know where I might get one? Heard several refences but that is all

Is the "diffuser" wider behind the axle than in front? If our court uses precident in decideing cases, this seems to be important. The diffuser/undertray did not go past the rear axle

What makes the bottom of a DB1 tail or an 88 Reynard tail different than a diffuser? Does not have sides to keep the air from the underside trapped and is behind the rear axle before the borrom is curved up to meet the top

If I made a DB1 tail that was 2" lower than stock is it a diffuser? Keep in mind it can be no wider then the surface it originates from, if it has a leading and a trailing edge then it is an airfoil. Bruns argued with the comp board that the db-1 tail is not because it has no leading edge and won his case.

6" lower? see above

At ground level? as long as it is less then 1" of curvature between axle center lines then no

I spent seven years doing aero but I'm not a lawyer. When is the bottom of the body a diffuser and when is it just the bottom of the body? Good question and the reason I cut the bottom of the engine cover off where it wraps around the transaxle, despite the fact the 2 pieces do not meet.

And is the bottom of my Titan Mk5, one of the classic cigar shaped cars, illegal because of its curvature?

I dont remember ever seeing a Titan, but if there is more then 1" of curvature between the axles then I would have to say yes.

John

[S Lathrop]

The rule covering undertrays was written in 1984. I was present along with David Bruns, Ralph Firman, Adrian Reynard, John Crossle, Paul White and other builders. The actual rule was the work of Ed Zink and John Grubb. I asked both Ed and John if a diffuser such as what was on TC's car would be legal. I even drew a picture. That would have been considered legal by the authors of the rule.

Under Phil Creighton's comp board we had the addition of the undefined and unknowable terms tunnels and diffusers. This was in response to a protest of Chuck Brewers Citation FF. That car was illegal but no one opposing us understood the rules well enough to see why it was illegal.

In all of these protests, no one, to my knowledge has ever gotten under a car and measured to see if it was legal.

This is a fine example of the need for a rewrite of the FF rules such as we did in 1984. When SCCA moved from Colorado to Kansas they forgot to pack the institutional memory about the rules and the issues.

Years ago, the manufacturers and service providers thought it important enough the we paid for Frank Shulthies to do the run offs tech for FV and FF. To do a competitant job of tech, we need people who really understand individual classes.

Look at the post race FF inspection muck involving the intake manifolds.

[TimW]

To do a competitant job of tech, we need people who really understand individual classes.

I really agree that we do indeed need a class by class evangalist/steward/tech inspector in SCCA. As much as everyone bitches over Bernie Eccelstone, he's a smart and strong enough figure in the sport that what he says goes, and in the end most of what he says is best for formula one as a whole and rarely changes his position (wheras his critics generally complain about how his decision has hampered any advantage thay may have eeked out prior to the decision rather than the decision itself).

You can also have a similar problem when you have the wrong person chosen for that role, which I understand is driving entries away from Pro Mazda (don't know the players in this situation to be honest, just the first hand comments from some drivers).

Having one decision maker for FF would make for a very busy person, but if he is a good leader he can gain respect of the participants and thus gain cars on the grid arguably. Thus crux is getting the right person to do it that we all believe is smart enough to make good decisions and will always make fair decisions.

Tim

[Greg Mercurio]

Thanks to all of you for providing a new bone, without which, we would be in the annual new engine for FF discussion.

i'm going to re-read the GCR. I always thought there was little ambiguity in the belly pan undertray and aerodynamics sections. Obviously I missed something useful...again

p.s. It's Frank Schultheis. A member of the SF Region's Hall of Fame

[R. Pare]

One of the things that has happened from the re-write of the undertray rule is that it has caused a wholesale change in the meaning of the sentence away from the original intent.

The original rule wording was "No extension of the undertray on that plane or attached components for the purpose of downforce or ground effects are permitted.". In that original version, "attached components" is a clear reference to things on the plane of the undertray, NOT attachments placed on other planes somewhere else on the bodywork. The rule writers also agreed that if the undertray "extension" stepped upwards or downwards, away from the plane described by the undertray that is under the bodywork, the extension was absolutely legal - it was no longer on the same plane and therefore was not subject to that particular rule.

Also, while not written into the rule, the word "extensions" referred to the bodywork - ie - for something to be an 'extension' it had to 'extend past' something, with that something being the bodywork. If the 'extension' was "shadowed" (or covered) by bodywork, it was not an 'extension of the undertray' and therefore, again, not subject to that rule - the fact that it may or may not be a bolt-on piece or an integral part of the bodywork was irrelevant.

[Daryl DeArman]

So how do you obtain someone with the knowledge of the FF rules and class without the appearance of bias?

[Brian]

So how do you obtain someone with the knowledge of the FF rules and class without the appearance of bias?

Take a page from NASCAR - hire a competent tech who really knows how to cheat to police all the other cheaters....

In a manner of speaking, of course. No one in Formula Ford actually cheats...

Brian