Movable aero

[Mike B]

Can somebody point me to the section in the GCR that outlaws driver adjustable aerodynamic devices in FC?

On the same topic, why is the FA wording of this rule so different than the FB rule? The way the FB rule is written:

"Movable aerodynamic devices, including aerodynamic skirts, are prohibited."

makes adjustable wings illegal, whether they can be adjusted by the driver or not. The FA wording is much more straightforward:

"Any specific part of the car which has an aerodynamic influence on the stability of the vehicle shall be mounted on the entirely sprung part of the car and shall be firmly fixed while the car is in motion."

Rhetorical question: Why can't the GCR be a bit more consistent?

[Steve Demeter]

Cause the FB should have been written like the FA part.

I think the intent is to prohibit moveable aero devices that can be adjusted while the car is in motion.

But to simply say moveable aero devices are prohibited could be construed to mean wings, slippery body shapes and the like, cause they do move every time that the car moives. Just not relative to the rest of the car.

[RussMcB]

Mike, have you been looking at old footage of the Chaparral 2C? :-)

[VehDyn]

Agreed that the rule should have been written like the FA rule. Just like the issue with the front wings in F1 that they tried to clarify this year, nothing is infinitely stiff and will deflect with load, its just a matter of how much is allowed.

I think what Mike was saying was not gross motion, ie when the car is moving and the aero parts move with it, but the way the rule is written, wouldn't that disllow static adjustment?

PS. That would be an interesting protest to prove. His wing is flattening out a couple degrees when he is on the banking....

[LenFC11]

mike
i may be wrong but weren't you onw of the guys who helped write the rules for FB? Often when we try to re-invent the wheel it's not as good. FA wording is more clear

[Mike B]

Len,
You are sort of wrong. I was part of the committee that wrote the FB proposal but what appeared in the GCR has lots of differences from what we submitted. Can't remember, but this might be one of them.
I know the intent of the rule but my point is that I don't see anything under FC preventing driver-adjustable aero. My rhetorical question was also my way of saying that the FA rule is good, the FB rule is completely different (and poorly written), the FC rule is nonexistent, and they could all be the same. With these newfangled computers you can cut and paste whole passages of text without even breaking a sweat.
More rhetorical questions:
-can I sell a servo set-up for drivers to adjust the wings on FCs?
-do I need to fill all the adjustment holes in the end plates on my FB wings?

[EYERACE]

the words are different because a different human wrote the words.....and few of us have excellent command of the english language be it spoken or written. the intent is the same - and that's what i'd go with -

but the actual language does actually read that a wing on an FB is not moved on track or in the paddock either.....[but this constitutes sophmoric grammer]so your reply as you reset the wing in the paddock [in case that idiot only capable of sophmoric reasoning happens to come around] is that you did not move it, you adjusted it -

and then there's that infinitely worse game that goes something like......well you reset the wing while at speed on track but you argue in your defense that you did not move it but rather you adjusted it at speed and the rules do not prohibit adjusting it, merely moving it.

[RobLav]

Why don't we see if we can get the FA wording Mike? Either Dave G or Lee S or John LaRue can help.

I don't think this current wording was in our original proposal.

[Stan Clayton]

The earliest draft copy of the proposed rules for FB that I have contains the following phrase:

Movable aerodynamic devices, including aerodynamic skirts, are prohibited.

Does everyone agree that what we mean by this is:

Driver-adjustable aerodynamic devices are prohibited.

GCR 9.3.4. already specifically prohibits aerodynamic skirts in Club Racing. Speaking of which, should 9.3.4. be updated to read the following: (changes in Bold)

9.3.4. AERODYNAMIC DEVICES
Aerodynamic skirts are prohibited in Club Racing. Driver-adjustable aerodynamic devices are prohibited, unless specifically permitted.

I added the "unless specifically permitted" because they ASR specifically permits "actively adjusted aerodynamic elements."

Stan

[R. Pare]

To find the pertinent "no cockpit adjustment" phrase, you have to go to the FF rules (which are required for FC construction) to D.7.c.

Yes, it is poorly written. Maybe some day both the FF and FC rules will be re-written and cleaned up, but don't hold your breath.

Stan:

Not too sure about that, unless "driver-adjusted" is somehow now synonomous with "actively adjusted". Also, the preceeding sentence states that the mounting hardware must remain immobile relative to the chassis at all times - ie, the mounts cannot be adjusted while in motion, and it generally is via adjustment of the mounting hardware that you would adjust wings, diffusers, etc., from the cockpit.

If that is the case, then the only movements allowed are through distortion via loading, with possible the exception of the wing flaps, since the mounting apparatus (the end plates) are not specified as having to be ridgidly mounted to the chassis, and are therefore not subject to that "immobile" rule.

[Mike B]

9.3.4. AERODYNAMIC DEVICES
Aerodynamic skirts are prohibited in Club Racing. Driver-adjustable aerodynamic devicesare prohibited, unless specifically permitted.

So, does that mean that only my crew chief, or my wife, or my kids, are allowed to adjust my wings?
I think the FA wording, while a bit verbose, accomplishes what we intend. Although I might replace the "firmly fixed" part with "shall not be adjusted". The key is to include the "while the car is in motion" part.

What about FC?

[R. Pare]

Mike:

Another interpretation is that the adjustment could legally be done by remote control from the pits!

[RussMcB]

<snip> because they ASR specifically permits "actively adjusted aerodynamic elements."

Hmm. I wonder if that will catch the eye of some ARRC competitors ...

[Stan Clayton]

Good point, Mike, so how would you write 9.3.4.?

Unless specifically permitted, aerodynamic devices may not be adjustable while the car is in motion.

Another good point from Richard, which I think is addressed above.

Yes, Russ...that verbiage was deliberatly settled on years ago to keep *real* Can-Am cars legal in ASR.

Pretty cool, eh?

[formulasuper]

ASR specifically permits "actively adjusted aerodynamic elements."

Stan
__________________

FS uses the same phrase; "allows for actively adjusted aerodynamic elements (i.e. wings, diffusers, etc.)

[Stan Clayton]

FS uses the same phase; "allows for actively adjusted aerodynamic elements (i.e. wings, diffusers, etc.)

Yep...and it looks like the exact same verbiage. Unfortunately, no twin chassis cars?

[TimW]

Yep...and it looks like the exact same verbiage. Unfortunately, no twin chassis cars?

Where does it say you can only have one 'sprung part of the car.' I don't see the FA rules eliminating a Lotus 88 down-fitted with a BDA...

Tim

[Stan Clayton]

Thank you, Tim, for making my day! Here I was thinking that was way too obscure...