July 2012 Preliminary Minutes Questions

[Stan Clayton]

While reading the proposed rewrite of the FF/FC rules this morning one section in particular jumped out at me, and I am wondering what is the intent of the CRB with this wording in D.6.c. Aerodynamic Aids:

Cockpit or remote adjustment is not permitted; wings and airfoils shall be non-movable when the car is in operation.

Cockpit adjustment is clear, such as one is permitted with anti-roll bars, but what does "remote adjustment" mean? For remote adjustment I have this vision of the driver pulling into the hot pits, whereupon the team adjusts the angle of the wings before the driver goes back out to attempt a quicker lap time. Does the proposed new rule prohibit this type of remote (from the cockpit) adjustment of the wings?

If so, how is one to adjust the wings? Does the driver now have to carry an assortment of wings that are built to varying, but fixed, angles of incidence? Surely this cannot be the case.

If I let my imagination run wild, I can see a time when new ECUs will be capable of (if they aren't already) adjusting wing angles on the fly, much as they do ignition timing and injector bandwith. Is that the CRB's intent? Or where a "remote" ECU might adjust the wings in real time using radio signals from the pits (or some other as yet unenvisioned communication technology).

If the intent of the CRB is to preclude this sort of "remote" wing adjustment, what is inadequate about the very next sentence?

Any part of the car which that has an influence on the aerodynamic stability of the vehicle shall be firmly attached with no provisions for adjustment to vary downforce while the car is in motion.

The other question I have is about this statement in the same section:

wings and airfoils shall be non-movable when the car is in operation

Are teams supposed to mount the wings to the trailer so everyone can admire them from afar? Or anchor them to the hot pits deck while the car is moving down the track? Of course not, yet that is the statement implies on one level.

Likewise, no matter how hard they might wish to the CRB cannot suspend the effects of gravity, vibration, deformation and aerodynamic pressure on wings while the car is in motion. Wings WILL more. They WILL deform. And they WILL deflect while the car is in motion. The only question is will this unavoidable motion be the natural consequence of physics or deliberate adjustment?

While I sympathize with their intent, the CRB cannot suspend or violate the laws of physics. If their intent is that the wings shall not be adjustable while the car is in motion, please just say that.

The phrase in D.6.d. that prohibits adjustment while the car is in motion is entirely sufficient to accomplish the common sense objectives of the rule. In contrast, attempting to suspend the laws of physics is an exercise in futility. In past years I mocked the prohibition in the GCR against creating downforce, and now the rules call for "minimizing" downforce. I urge the CRB to avoid repeating this mistake by striking the offending verbiage in the proposed rules, and instead use less ambiguous language.

[Purple Frog]

Here we go again...

[starkejt]

Cliffs Notes:

Rules and the people who make them suck.

[Purple Frog]

We keep hosing around with a 25 year old set of rules.
Look up the 2011 Euro rules for FF and you see a modern approach.
I have a copy on my pc. Nice read.
Of course FoMoCo wrote them.

Probably can find them with Goggle...

Formula Ford 1600 (2011CY) Technical Regulations – Version 01 01/01/2011
Ford Motor Company; 2011
Technical regulations for Formula Ford with 1600cc Duratec Engine

[KevinFirlein]

got a link stan ?

edit nevermind

[starkejt]

Check the other thread:

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52527

[EACIII]

I think it is pretty clear as written. You can't have a cocpit adjustable wing or a remoute (such as someone in the pits, or a control just outside the cocpit) adjustable wing. It does not say you can't have an adjustable wing. Adjusting the wing at the wing is not a remoute location.

Ed

[Wren]

Exactly. It may be a little bit repetitive but it is also clear what is meant.

GCR 1.2.3

[TimW]

So the spiffy t-handle wing adjusters on the end of the flaps are no longer legal? Is that considered remote? Remote to what? The wing, the car, the race venue? Just as the 'must not move' language needs a reference. Cannot move relative to the car? The unsprung mass? the sprung mass? the sun?

[KevinFirlein]

I dont see how the 'T' adjusters could be considered remote since they are mounted directly to the wing itself. They are part of the assy not remote.

a remote adjuster would be a sensor attached to the steering rack that read steering angle and adjusted wing angle based on the steering angle it was reading. Back when this all came up in the pro series I mentioned I could install such a system and since the rack was outside the cockpit it would technically be legal. at the time the line about movebale aero devices had disappeared from the rule book and was a small issue in the series. I wasnt serious, though it could easily be done, I was just making a point.

as for the rest of this rewrite this is the 3rd time we have seen this. I was fully in favor the 1st time but its starting to get tedious having the same debated every 6-12 months.

[Daryl DeArman]

I dont see how the 'T' adjusters could be considered remote since they are mounted directly to the wing itself. They are part of the assy not remote.

I don't believe their intent is to make such adjusters illegal, however a concerning precedent is the GCR definition of "remote reservoir shock" which went on to include piggyback style reservoirs (reservoirs which are clearly mounted directly to the shock body).

Sometimes all that verbiage is bad. IF they want to prevent wings from being adjusted while the vehicle is in motion just state wings that are capable of being adjusted while the vehicle is in motion is prohibited.....but then I can adjust those T adjusters on a vehicle moving 3 mph quite easily

The hell with it...let's just be lazy. GCR 1.2.3 applies and some dictator will decide what he finds strained and/or tortured.

[Tiago Santos]

Better yet, just get rid of wings entirely. Damn things seem to cause more trouble than they're worth!

[KenT]

They must have just watched the Montreal race. Since it was on Fox, they have to re-explain all the systems on the car to the non Speed viewers.

After the entry to the straight, which is a long rather straight portion of the racetrack, there is a DRS activation zone. DRS stands for Drag Reduction System. The DRS can activate then the trailing driver/car is 1 second or less than the leading driver/car in the activation zone. The DRS changes the angle of the rear wing, reducing drag until the driver applies the brakes and the wing returns to its normal position.

Fade to SCCA rules writer watching race...

"Eureka!!! That DRS system could be used on an FC. Must..write...rule..."

[R. Pare]

If I remember correctly, when adjustable wings was addressed a couple years ago ( last year?), it first stated only that cockpit adjustment was not allowed, after which I pointed out that that left open RC adjustment from the pits while the car was out on the track, at which time they added the "no remote adjustment" caveat.

The "movable" verbiage I do not know the origin, but most likely it was a wording carry-over of the ban on movable aerodynamic devices (skirts, etc), and is maybe an effort to address purposely flexible wing mounts (wings that rotate backwards and trim out under high speed load) - something that was done with S2 rear spoilers and diffusers years ago (and it wouldn't surprise me if some FC cars do that now).

It could be written a bit better, but will have to do for now. Anyone who wants to address it later with better wording can, as with any rule in the GCR.

[TimW]

and is maybe an effort to address purposely flexible wing mounts (wings that rotate backwards and trim out under high speed load) - something that was done with S2 rear spoilers and diffusers years ago (and it wouldn't surprise me if some FC cars do that now).

Most other sanctioning bodies specify that deterministically by stating max deflection at a given load. And the rules specify there must be a provision in the device to hang the test load. Nothing is rigid or non-movable, as Stan suggested.

[R. Pare]

True, but really, do we want to go that far in club racing? Would you really want someone in Tech to hang a 50 pound weight off of someones '99 DB6 fiberglass rear wing flap?

[TimW]

True, but really, do we want to go that far in club racing? Would you really want someone in Tech to hang a 50 pound weight off of someones '99 DB6 fiberglass rear wing flap?

Well, 10lbs and a smaller deflection would be better than an unachievable requirement of 'rigid' or 'non movable'

[KevinFirlein]

tend to agree with Richard , I really dont want anyone from tech comming anywhere near any of my cars with lead weights in their hands. oooops sorry, well I am sure you have a spare all you open wheel guys are rich arent you ?

[iamuwere]

What defines "cockpit adjustable". If the adjuster is not in the cockpit, but rather outside of it, is it still cockpit adjustable?

[Purple Frog]

While all of you wax rhetorically about movable wings the big issues in this rewrite go sailing by.

[Stan Clayton]

While all of you wax rhetorically about movable wings the big issues in this rewrite go sailing by.

Nah...we're all just waiting to laugh and point at the first n00b to complain that someone's car's lower frame rails aren't level with the horizon.

[Purple Frog]

Can't use the horizon. The horizon is curved, the reference plane is supposed to be flat.

Wait, wait... i forgot about the Flat Earth Society. Maybe some of their members are writing...

We have two other threads about car/track safety issues, but we are going to rewrite 25 year old rules, and exclude all the modern developments in the past few decades since concerning materials other than steel.

[starkejt]

Verily I declare that the Earth revolves around the sun and not t'other way round.

[KenT]

So do the rules changes outlaw any existing car or commonly used practice?

[Purple Frog]

Ken,
Probably, but only if somebody mans up and submits a protest after the rules go in effect.

[Purple Frog]

Because I care. And it's better to contribute than just rant. I took some time and studied the rewrite. A few things that may need refinement:

Section D.3.a Chassis/Frame
[FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]The front bulkhead may be constructed from[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]aluminum plate.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]Does that mean you can build in out of any thickness plate? Or are we depending on the whole design being reviewed and approved during homolagation? Doesn't specify much. My wife has a bunch of aluminum serving plates, not sure i want one in front of my feet. [/FONT]

[FONT=Univers-Italic]Section D.3.b.3[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]The floorpan shall be, at the minimum, attached to the chassis lower rails at or adjacent to [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]its full perimeter by any combination of welding, bonding, riveting, or bolting. The centers [/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic]between any two adjacent fasteners shall be no more than 6 inches apart as measured [/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic]along the panel surfaces.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic]

[FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]This means somebody could put a .060" aluminum floor on the car with only rivets 5.99" apart. The floorpan does not have to be the "reference plane" for the bottom of the car (see section D.5). The reference plane could be just fiberglass bodywork on the bottom of the car. In that situation, the way i read this rewrite, one could have a floorpan holding the driver in with rivets 5.99" apart, and then under that a fiberglass assembly that would make up the reference plane. I see a safety issue there. Hopefully no builder would even want to do that. If they did I'm guessing in homolagation the builder would be told to increase the fasteners on the floorpan. Just a thought.[/FONT]
note: this will allow new RFRs to attach the hell out of their existing sloped floorpan. Up to now they couldn't because it would make it an illegal bulkhead. Score one for Ralph.


[FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-BoldItalic][FONT=Univers-BoldItalic][FONT=Univers-BoldItalic]D.6 Aerodynamic Aids[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers-Italic]c. [FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]Cockpit or remote adjustment is not permitted; wings and airfoils shall be non-movable when the car is in operation[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]d. Any part of the car which that has an influence on the aerodynamic stability of the vehicle shall [/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]be firmly attached with no provisions for adjustment to vary downforce wh[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]ile the car is in [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]motion.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]I know Stan already brought this up... But me thinks the language in (d.) is sufficent. Just take that [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[/FONT]

[/FONT]section of (c.) above out of the rewrite.

Section D.8 Brakes
[FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]Unrestricted, except:[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]a. Maximum of 2 pistons allowed per caliper. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Italic]

[FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]What? 4 piston calipers have been legal in FC for a while now. You going to take that away? Now that lots of members have bought them. Wren pointed out i'm wrong about this. Nevermind[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]Dimension Table[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Univers-Italic][FONT=Univers-Italic]In the table it now limits the length of FF from the rear axle C/L to the rear of the car to 80 cm. It used to be 100 cm. So a few special DB1s will have to cut their tails down to the new size. Was that rule change intended?[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers-Italic]******[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers-Italic]Other thoughts:[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers-Italic]I've been saying for years that FC and FF rules should be totally separated. Easier to reference and understand. The argument that frames can move easily between the two classes just doesn't ring true. If that were the case FB would be mixed in with FC and FF, and Formula First would be mixed in with FV. In this day and age with everything electronic (no carbon paper), word processors, and the rules updated monthly electronically on the website, it just makes sense. But i'll never win that argument, because the old-timers like it the way it is. Who cares about the 18 year old kid trying to make sense of it?[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers-Italic]I'll keep studying. Would like to see other serious comments, instead of barbs. How many others out there are reading this thing line-by-line?[/FONT]

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[formulasuper]

While reading the proposed rewrite of the FF/FC rules this morning one section in particular jumped out at me, and I am wondering what is the intent of the CRB with this wording in D.6.c. Aerodynamic Aids:
Cockpit adjustment is clear, such as one is permitted with anti-roll bars, but what does "remote adjustment" mean? For remote adjustment I have this vision of the driver pulling into the hot pits, whereupon the team adjusts the angle of the wings before the driver goes back out to attempt a quicker lap time. Does the proposed new rule prohibit this type of remote (from the cockpit) adjustment of the wings?

If so, how is one to adjust the wings? Does the driver now have to carry an assortment of wings that are built to varying, but fixed, angles of incidence? Surely this cannot be the case.

If I let my imagination run wild, I can see a time when new ECUs will be capable of (if they aren't already) adjusting wing angles on the fly, much as they do ignition timing and injector bandwith. Is that the CRB's intent? Or where a "remote" ECU might adjust the wings in real time using radio signals from the pits (or some other as yet unenvisioned communication technology).

If the intent of the CRB is to preclude this sort of "remote" wing adjustment, what is inadequate about the very next sentence?
The other question I have is about this statement in the same section:
Are teams supposed to mount the wings to the trailer so everyone can admire them from afar? Or anchor them to the hot pits deck while the car is moving down the track? Of course not, yet that is the statement implies on one level.

Likewise, no matter how hard they might wish to the CRB cannot suspend the effects of gravity, vibration, deformation and aerodynamic pressure on wings while the car is in motion. Wings WILL more. They WILL deform. And they WILL deflect while the car is in motion. The only question is will this unavoidable motion be the natural consequence of physics or deliberate adjustment?

While I sympathize with their intent, the CRB cannot suspend or violate the laws of physics. If their intent is that the wings shall not be adjustable while the car is in motion, please just say that.

The phrase in D.6.d. that prohibits adjustment while the car is in motion is entirely sufficient to accomplish the common sense objectives of the rule. In contrast, attempting to suspend the laws of physics is an exercise in futility. In past years I mocked the prohibition in the GCR against creating downforce, and now the rules call for "minimizing" downforce. I urge the CRB to avoid repeating this mistake by striking the offending verbiage in the proposed rules, and instead use less ambiguous language.

"If I let my imagination run wild, I can see a time when new ECUs will be capable of (if they aren't already) adjusting wing angles on the fly, much as they do ignition timing and injector bandwith. Is that the CRB's intent? Or where a "remote" ECU might adjust the wings in real time using radio signals from the pits (or some other as yet unenvisioned communication technology)."

FYI: At the Nov. 2011 Rd Atl ARRC there was a FM running in FS with a electronically controlled rear wing. It was deemed legal. Maybe this is what they're concerned with.

[Wren]

FC/FF has mandated 2 pistons per caliper ever since aluminum calipers were allowed in.

The single biggest **** up in the FB rules was not better incorporating FC rules.

[Purple Frog]

Wren,

I could be wrong. When i was looking i was looking at April 2011 GCR. I have just the FF and FC sections on my iPod.

i thought number of pistons in FC was free, but all pistons had to be the same size. But i'm starting to remember the "Creighton Compromise".

I'll try to bring up a more recent GCR. Just a pain going through a 700 page PDF... Wish they had a separate PDF for each section, it sure would be faster.

[Purple Frog]

Scott,

If i were doing it, i would tie wing angle into a relationship with position on the track map on the DA system, separate of the ECU. Especially in classes where the ECUs are teched. Of course if i did it, i would enter in FS.

The FS Mazda at the ARRC was ruled legal precisely becasue it was FS.

The proposed rule rewrite as the subject of this thread covers only FC and FF.

[Purple Frog]

Looks like this rewrite will allow the RFRs to use their sloped floorpan as a true bulkhead (bonded and riveted a lot). Also, the RFR won't have to have their reference plane (re bottom of car) run all the way to the front bulkhead anymore. It can now end at the rear of the front tires. Teams have told me that would improve under car air flow, and maybe even make lower ride heights possible.

If you are keeping score:
Ralph +2
Nathan -7

[R. Pare]

The front bulkhead may be constructed from aluminum plate.

Does that mean you can build in out of any thickness plate? Or are we depending on the whole design being reviewed and approved during homolagation? Doesn't specify much. My wife has a bunch of aluminum serving plates, not sure I want one in front of my feet.

There is no mandatory thickness now for a bulkhead constructed from steel, so why should there be one for alu? As with almost everything in the construction of a frame, the stoutness of the components is up to the designer and the purchaser. Besides, weren't you a big proponent of allowing alu front bulkheads? You got it. Quit bitchin.

The floorpan shall be, at the minimum, attached to the chassis lower rails at or adjacent to its full perimeter by any combination of welding, bonding, riveting, or bolting. The centers between any two adjacent fasteners shall be no more than 6 inches apart as measured along the panel surfaces.

This means somebody could put a .060" aluminum floor on the car with only rivets 5.99" apart. Yes - exactly what could be done for the last 30 years The floorpan does not have to be the "reference plane" for the bottom of the car (see section D.5). The reference plane could be just fiberglass bodywork on the bottom of the car. Yes - exactly what could be done for the last 30 years In that situation, the way i read this rewrite, one could have a floorpan holding the driver in with rivets 5.99" apart, and then under that a fiberglass assembly that would make up the reference plane. Yes - exactly what could be done for the last 30 years

In the table it now limits the length of FF from the rear axle C/L to the rear of the car to 80 cm. It used to be 100 cm. So a few special DB1s will have to cut their tails down to the new size. Was that rule change intended?

I think that this was to make the table finally give the same number (80 cm) as the text. Not sure why the table was the one changed, but it may have to do with a ruling a while back about which take precedence if there is a conflict between the text and any tables.

[LEFT][FONT=Univers-Italic][COLOR=#800080]I've been saying for years that FC and FF rules should be totally separated. Easier to reference and understand. The argument that frames can move easily between the two classes just doesn't ring true. Try arguing that with the constructors that use the same basic frame and bodywork for both classes,, nevermind arguing with the Ralph Porter about him starting the conversions of all the DB6s to FFIf that were the case FB would be mixed in with FC and FF, It should have been, but the writers didn't see it that way at the time. If they were smart, they would adopt most of the FF/FC construction language

[R. Pare]

If you are keeping score:
Ralph +2
Nathan -7 [/QUOTE]

Don't try alluding anything of this rewrite to Ralph - most likely he isn't even aware that it is happening.

[Purple Frog]

Don't try alluding anything of this rewrite to Ralph - most likely he isn't even aware that it is happening.

I know Ralph didn't know about the rewrite. I talk to him every couple of weeks. And, I know Nathan didn't know about it either. The majority of competitors didn't know about it. I don't think even Josh knew about it.

[starkejt]

Knew about what?

[Purple Frog]

For all the Apexspeeders that tune into this thread for reasons of entertainment, education or whatever. You may be wondering who is this Purple Frog fool who keeps challenging the established boards that want to rewrite the rules every year.

As it applies to this thread, a bit of my background:

I am actively racing a FC in SCCA national races. So it is my class and has been for 14 years.
I am a national scrutineer.
I am the Technical Director of the F2kCS and F1600CS race series. In that position i actively, hands on inspect between 50 and 60 FCs and FFs on seven weekends per year. That is a car count that more than rivals the Sprints or Runoffs. But... we are doing it 7 times a year. We impound at least 6 cars per session, and really do seriously inspect the cars. Not to mention that during the course of a pro weekend i personally look over every car in their respective paddocks. It is a very pro-active stance. We have been doing this for 7 years, so we have built up a wealth of experience and knowledge.
I consider Fred Clark my mentor. He taught me years ago how to inspect crash damage, document it, analyze it, and strive to look for ways to improve safety.
In my duties i have to write rules. In that vein i do know how hard it is.
I have learned the hard way of the unintended consequences of some well meaning rules.

That said, yes, i do have skin in this game.
And, i truly believe there is not a person involved in these rules discussions that does not want the best for the club. It may be that everybody's "best" may be different.

Just thought it might help for noobies to know whos who.

[starkejt]

Very impressive, but why did you downvote Nathan into oblivion? I see nothing that prevents him from running different spring rates left and right.

[Purple Frog]

Nathan is from New Hampshire. Ever been to New Hampshire? The government has placed liquor stores in the rest areas on their Interstate highway. Things are ... ah, ah... different... up there.

Live free or die!

[starkejt]

Rest stop liquor stores and "Live free or die" are both relevant to my interests.

[Reddog]

Rest stop liquor stores and "Live free or die" are both relevant to my interests.

Drink Free or Die ...

throwing a new rule throught process

FC = any 2000cc ... one 45 DCOE ... no puters ...