There have been a few suggestions to separate FF and FC rules.
What about another approach: have common rules for the tube frame section of the rules for FF, FC and FB. The three classes have different body work rules but the requirement for a tube frame is the same.
All three classes require a tube frame. The FB rules allow for more freedom in the design. Maybe FF and FC could benefit from a slight change.
Last edited by S Lathrop; 08.23.11 at 9:19 PM.
Certainly helps the manufacturers that are currently complaint in all three classes with the same chassis.Originally Posted by S Lathrop
Certainly hurts a manufacturer who currently builds just a FB chassis, or just a FC chassis.
It would also help all those that want to hang on to the same car if/when they change classes.
I've had 9 different cars in 6 different classes since 1988 so I tend not to get too attached to any one car or class. Part of that "race what you can afford to wad up in a ball" thing. Until I went vintage racing never bought a car expecting it to be competitive for more than a few years. I realize other folks race cars that are significanly higher cost (percentage) of their annual racing budget, but IMO it shouldn't be a huge concern to the racer, especially when you have folks who spend their whole racing life in the same class.
why do you assume that the FB rules should change?
Last edited by S Lathrop; 08.23.11 at 9:20 PM.
fasteners
Wouldn't using fasteners like zip ties on side panels create a possible guillotine situation?
I'll go back to watching from the sidelines.
As a constructor, I like the idea of combining the chassis rules for all three classes (FF/FC/FB). Ideally, you'd make the bodywork rules the same as well, allowing the wider sidepods from the European FF cars. For FF, you'd need to preserve the restriction on wings and diffusers, and keep the larger flat "reference area."
Unfortunately, I think it's too late. You'd need to do one of two things: (1) open up the FF/FC chassis rules to match FB; or (2) change the FB chassis rules to match FF/FC.
Option 1 would allow almost unlimited raised noses, and open up all kinds of aero design possibilities. The "anti-Radon" group is so unhappy with a car designed under the existing FF/FC rules they tried to ban it (twice). I can only imagine how they'd feel about the car we (or others) would design under the FB rules!
Option 2 would limit raised noses and only allow the angled floorpan approach of the Radon, the "dummy" floorpan approach of the RFR, or maybe some new idea. That's not really fair to all the existing FB constructors since it would make most of the current designs illegal.
And, of course, there is the restriction on the "structural" use of composites in the current FB rules, which doesn't exist in the FF/FC rules.
I wasn't around then, but I assume the rules for FB were written in the understanding that they were a departure from the FF/FC rules, and that was done consciously. It looks like the idea was to keep existing FC cars legal while allowing new designs that weren't.
Bringing the two sets of rules into alignment is a great idea, and it might be just the boost needed to eliminate the danger of FB losing National status. But it would have so much impact on existing cars that I doubt it could ever happen under the member-driven process in SCCA.
Nathan
Rules
Nathan-The original FB rules were suppose to follow the guidelines of the FC chassis rules.The BOD voted it in and then things changed.My car has a raised nose and was designed and built in 2001.The belly is flat under the drivers seat but the floor under his feet is raised to allow for the air to be used under the nose.I wouldn't worry about your car(Radon)people always find fault with things they don't understand. I have not seen it up close but the pictures show sound design theory and innovation.I always appreciate someone who uses the rules to his advantage. Nice job. Mike Sauce
I neither thought nor did I assume they should.
Last edited by Daryl DeArman; 09.02.11 at 10:48 AM.
Sportsfans,
It's time to get those thoughts in writing to the CRB. Easy to do.
http://www.crbscca.com/
Discussing only on Apexspeed won't get it done.
I tried to submit mine anonymously..... I guess that only works in Georgia
2006
2007
Thread dead for a week!!
Looks like they are getting ready to post something!!
Cars and Rules link
October Fastrack Preliminary Minutes/Tech Bulletin
9/XX/11- Preliminary Minutes
9/XX/11- Preliminary Tech Bulletin
Word on the street is the answer will be posted anonymously
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
