FV Ad Hoc mtg. oct

[Terry Abbott]

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on Oct 1
Members attending: Steve Oseth, Barret Hendricks, John Petillo, Bruce Livermore, Dietmar Bauerle
Guest: Fred Clark


A while back the wording in the GCR was changed with regards to the term BODYWORK. This became necessary because the GCR definition of BODYWORK was totally inappropriate for any open wheeled car. Some confusion still exists as to the actual intent of the term BODYWORK.
The current rules state: Bodywork shall be defined as all panels external to the chassis/ frame and licked directly by the air stream. All bodywork shall be rigidly attached to the chassis and shall not move relative to the chassis while the car is in operation.
This does not allow for the use of any device which would divert air around the rear axle or locating arm (trailing or leading) for the purpose of streamlining . It seems that some officials have taken the new BODYWORK definition to its fullest extent and have told competitors that their cars in their current configurations are now illegal even though these cars have been running this configuration for the last 10-20 years.
This brings up the question as to whether these cars should require modifications or the BODYWORK rule should be adjusted to allow cars that have always run this configuration to continue without the need for modification(s) .
The SCCA has asked the Ad Hoc Committee to further discuss the BODYWORK rule and come up with a recommendation. The Committee will be discussing this issue at subsequent meetings. Preliminary discussion has been toward allowing some streamlining device provided that it is a structural part of the suspension but we are not yet sure of the exact wording or to what extent.

A letter has been received and discussion began on the question ( read possible need and/or advantage) of allowing forged pistons. The letter suggested the problems with current piston supplies and quality and asked that a forged piston built to current specifications be considered. The Committee has decided to open discussion by first approaching certain manufacturers to determine interests and costs. The thought is that if the forged piston is allowed, it would not be exclusive to one supplier but opened up to anyone wishing to manufacture and sell to the general public. Our primary concern would be to make certain that adequate specifications would be in place to control the piston parameters.

No other items were presented or discussed.
Next meeting scheduled for Nov 5



So what is SCCA Stand on this today ? Enforcing the Current rule that covering trailing arms are illegal unless it's structural part of the trailing arm? We all know why we have run them at some point.will some be able to run them this week at the runoffs ?

No way are they body work!

I thought this year when they re defined the rule this would clear things up

Let's spark up the conversation while we wait to hear from the west coast

[Steve Davis]

I too am wondering what the Stewards will do with that issue. I implored the CRB (via CRBSCCA.com) to clarify their stand on it BEFORE the Runoffs. They apparently decided to ignore that plea. I would say that everyone should probably take them OFF before making the trip out there.

While we're waiting to hear from Laguna, does anyone have a link for LIVE TIMING for the event? I went back through everything I could find from SCCA and found NO MENTION of it.

'Stuff' starts in about 12 hours or so .
??

[BLS]

"a link for LIVE TIMING "

Darned if I can find one...

[David Ferguson]

I'm sure when there is a link available it will appear on this page:

http://www.scca.com/events/index.cfm?eid=6670

[problemchild]

So what is SCCA Stand on this today ? Enforcing the Current rule that covering trailing arms are illegal unless it's structural part of the trailing arm? We all know why we have run them at some point.will some be able to run them this week at the runoffs ?

No way are they body work!

Of course they are bodywork. What else would they be?
They were never legal, whether people used them or not. Take them off!

They create lift on the rear of the car, which most people don't want anyway.

[grapefarmeral]

I suspect that SCCA in all it's wisdom will bugger this up as well. What will be the criteria for using the covers on the rear axles? Will it be OK for a driver to say 'I've had these on my car for the last 20 years' ? So if that's the new rule, will a Caracal that's been racing for the last 20 years be allowed to keep the fairing/aero wrap/what ever you want to call it on the rear axle/locating arm (or trailing arm as it's sometimes called), but if Fred builds a new car for someone they can't use the aforementioned aero device..?

Maybe the stewards at the Runoffs are waiting to see what Mike V is doing....

[Hardingfv32]

Varacins is asking for clarification at the CRB Tuesday meeting. The request was made by letter.

Without a doubt a properly designed cover can be used as a structural element. A legitimate structural element is a chassis part, not a body part.

And as stated there are a number of older designs that incorporated covers in their original design. The new section of the body rule is an over simplification. As much as people want to keep the rules brief, at this point of the class history there are many interlocking complication even with the simplest of changes.

No harm in taking a second bite of the apple.

Brian

[problemchild]

Whether its designed on to the car, been on there for years, or not ...... if its McGuyvered on with a couple of rivets, tie wraps, muffler tape, and chewing gum, its not structural and not legal in FV or other formula classes. The good news is that they won't be tough to remove.

[Matt King]

So it would be legal to weld plates between the axle tube and leading arm to fair them in, but not attach them in a less permanent manner? That doesn't make a lot of sense. You shouldn't be able to subvert the intent of the aero rules through the chassis rules. They should compliment each other.

[Hardingfv32]

Structural is un-define in the rules. So that means this whole area of discussion is open to the viewpoint of the group of officials that you are dealing with at a particular point in time.

I would say that it is not the strength or complexity of the cover system that is of important. It is whether you can demonstrate that the cover adds a 'required' strength element to the control arm assembly. The easier it is to see the needed for this 'required' strength, the better off you will be with non engineering type officials. The story has to be clear.

At the Runoffs the very few (1 or 2) covers in place do not meet this criteria. It is obvious that Varacins does not require his covers for this event. I would estimate that his stand on the use of covers is more an effort to preserve an element of work/craftsmanship that his team has invested. Maybe a form of frustration after the required removal of his wheel covers. Just my observation or opinion…..

Brian

[Steve Davis]

So it would be legal to weld plates between the axle tube and leading arm to fair them in, but not attach them in a less permanent manner? That doesn't make a lot of sense. You shouldn't be able to subvert the intent of the aero rules through the chassis rules. They should compliment each other.

Technically WELDING *anything* to the axle tubes is "not allowed" and would make it quite a bear to replace a bent tube. However, there are no restrictions to the SHAPE of any custom made component of the rear suspension. A 'crafty devil' such as Jim Brookshire might (and DID) fabricate the support pieces for his shock pushrods into a shape that closely fits the area between the tube and locating arms. The Agitator structure supports the entire load of the rear suspension and therefore REQUIRES substantial material in that area. OTOH, a car that has push or pull rods attached to the shock in another manner would NOT require such material in that area. This is not considered 'subverting' the rules ... rather using them to the best advantage .

According to the rules, 'bodywork' must not move relative to the chassis while the vehicle is in motion. Therefore, such panels that are not REQUIRED for the suspension would be considered illegal bodywork I think. Although quite a number of cars have been sporting those panels for many years, there are a lot of us that have always felt they were illegal - even by the old rules.

I guess what it comes down to at this point is what do the majority of the drivers think? SHOULD they become clearly defined as ILLEGAL or "allowed" as LEGAL. Either way, I think it's in the best interest of the class that the rules CLARIFY the situation. I submitted a request to the CRB to CLARIFY their stand BEFORE the Runoffs... they declined to do so. I supposed we MIGHT find out more in the next day or 2. *OR* everyone might just remove them for Laguna and we start this all over again in January .

[Tiago Santos]

Any aero and bodywork related bits will be a much more interesting discussion when people start thinking about Daytona.

I'm really looking forward to this Winter's round of FV rules discussion, particularly now that it doesn't really affect me anymore, so it would be a shame if the CRB actually clarified anything now and stopped all the entertainment.

[Hardingfv32]

The rules are pretty much set for next year. By the time anyone develops something that the majority wants to restrict or control it will be to late. Certainly no one on the FV Committee that can imagine what is possible and be pro-active.

Realistically, when was the last time any thing was developed other the Silver Bullet conversions? Even the Varacins car is very mature. Creativity is almost non-exsistant among the competitors.

Brian

[Tiago Santos]

Creativity is almost non-exsistant among the competitors.

Thankfully you're still around!