Raised Nose a "Body Opening"?

[fkennette]

As per the GCR:

Rule D.7.c, "There shall be no forward facing gaps or openings in the bodywork with the exception of those necessary for engine cooling, engine air inlet, shock or brake cooling.", and
Rule D.7.e, "It is not permitted to duct air through any part of the bodywork for the purpose of providing aerodynamic downforce on the car. All ducted air for heat exchangers (water/oil) shall pass though those heat exchangers."

Does the raised nose on my much modified Swift SC97 constitute a gap or opening in the bodywork? Is the opening actually "part" of the bodywork? Note in my current configuration that air is ducted under the nose and thru the sidepods to the radiator positioned crosswise behind the main roll hoop bulkhead, thus quite legal. I'm thinking of substantially reducing the front part of the sidepods, which would open up (eliminate?) the duct, and the leading edge of the opening for airflow thru the rad would be closer to the rad.

See attached pics for some clarification of the current design. Other cars that have a raised nose include a Stohr and Mike Sauce's own FF.

I enjoy experimenting with the aero stuff, just don't want to do a bunch of work that some may deem illegal. Has this ever been ruled on?

Any one care to comment?
Thanks,
Francis Kennette

[stonebridge20]

I took a few quick looks at that car at Sebring. Looked like a splitter to me.

Agnif

[R. Pare]

I don't see an issue there - what you have is indeed a splitter in my estimation also.

However, at the last Runoffs, there seemed to be some problems with what they deemed "attachments" at the rear of a couple of cars, so, if you really wanted to play it safe, you'd re-make the parts from glass as an integral part of the nose and/or sides.

[fkennette]

Agnif:
The front "undertray" extends in the same plane as the floor to the front bulkhead to comply with the flat bottom rule. I saw in another thread some comments about front splitters being illegal, but don't see it specifically prohibited by the GCR. If this front section blends into the bodywork it is not an airfoil device if it maintains a flat plate section, yes/no? Think about the Swift cars that have a spoiler than is not an airfoil because it has no leading edge, well this would have no trailing edge.

My interpretation is that my proposed floor is no more illegal than the many cars running a floor wider than the bodywork aft of the roll hoop, (lets call those an "afterplane" as opposed to a diffuser). Many VanDiemens and Citations are raced with such extensions, and realistically we all know those are not there for looks only. A minimal diffuser effect will be achieved with any car running some degree of rake if the "afterplanes" extend as such.

My CDN$0.02, (worth more than US $0.02 most days now) .

BTW, loved the Sebring event, (was our first National) and even though we got spanked we came away smarter than we arrived. Tired old lump of a motor is coming out this week to get freshened, and we look forward to the upcoming season as we get more serious about racing this year.

Francis

[fkennette]

Richard:

Good point, and Yes, I was planning on bonding some foam and glass to the top of the front "undertray" and splitter so that it all appears as a piece of bodywork.

On the Friday test day I smashed the splitter/undertray in the third session after attempting to climb the curbing from the off-course side; realized too late that the gentle off on the warm up lap was something like a 5" vertical curb coming back, ouch.

FK

[R. Pare]

The issue at the Runoffs apparently was because the offending parts were "attachments" for the purpose of downforce. Needless to say, that sort of wording is wide open to all sorts of interpretations!

From what I can see with this wording, as long as the component is an integral part of the bodywork, it cannot therefore be an "attachment". Also, as long as it is indeed bodywork, it cannot be considered an "extension of the undertray". On the rear of the car, if you used a full width undertray that came out some distance beyond the vertical sides of the body, it would not be considered an "extension" if it is covered by a body panel - for something to be considered an "extension", it has to extend beyond something, with the only possibility of that "something" being bodywork in that area of the car.

[John Robinson II]

Francis,
You should have asked me at Sebring, but the short story is the "extension" of the floor pan was deemed to be non compliant. Kephart's car was compliant because it was not an extension rather the floor pan itself. The added items that were in question were angles added to the sides of the body. If they had been glassed over then they would not have been additions and therefore legal.

It is my understanding that the aero issues have been kicked back to the F/SRAC for a new wording that is going to be more definitive. Hopefully it comes around in a timely manner. I know that Larue is very aware of what the issue was at the runoffs as he was the one I was going to for interpertations and history of existing rules. I would also imagine that R Pare is going to have some input on the new wording. I am in agreement with RP that if it is covered by bodywork, such as the citation, then it is not an extension of the undertray. Hopefully the new wording contains something that limits the amount of curvature per a set distance and also makes it stop at the center of the rear axle.

Nice to meet you at Sebring,
John

[cliff]

........and then you get into the definition of "covered by.." because you could argue that the extensions going out front are "covered by" the nose that is above it.....they do need to define a handful of words here. John...great job last two weeks, looked like a lot of work.

[R. Pare]

Good one, Cliff!

Yes, since the splitter is entirely shadowed by bodywork from above, it could be considered "covered' in a very liberal interpretation of the word, but I somehow doubt that it would fly with Tech - not much imagination in that crowd for the most part! To me, to be on the safe side, I'd have the body skin directly touch the panel as much as possible.

[M.Sauce]

Frank's car is my old car.I had similar side pods with the splitter exposed as well.This car is legal by the rule books.My new car uses only the bodywork for down force and it has a flat belly pan to the rear axle.The problem with the rule is that it was written when most chassis had a fiberglass panel under the frame that attached the two sides.This rule needs to be clarified so that it is understandable to the competitors.Otherwise we all will have undertrays at the Runoffs this year and may the best lawyer win.It is my opinion that although clever Coello's car did not meet the rules intent even after the strakes and fences were removed.

[Art Smith]

I whole heartedly agree the bodywork rules for FF need rewriting in a manner where ALL the terms are defined AND the rules as written are objectively verifiable. that said, a competitor's intent should be irrelavent; the only thing that should matter is compliant or non-compliant with the rule(s) as written. attempting to objectively verify good intentions, bad intentions, devious intentions, or any other kind of intentions is a mindless waste of time. better written rules will promote better competition on a level playing field for all AND far fewer "gate keepers".

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net