Printable View
I think the intent is to minimize ground effects.
And besides ground effects implies tunnels, which are normally between the rearmost edge of the front tire and the frontmost edge of the rear tire.
Snf diffusers are distinctly different from tunnels in that tunnels that work start out with a wide gap to the road, reduce it and then open back up at the exit.
diffusers do not do that, just start out close to the road and then open up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
Diffusers are, in fact, ground effects. In fact, the diffuser is one of the most important aspects of ground effects. Also if you take in consideration, the one inch variable allowed in the undertray, channeling is also available in FC which is also a ground effect. When considering the net effect of a diffuser, you need to take in account, not only the net boundary layer but also the volume change. While it is true that the totalizing airflow is slowed in the diffuser, the velocity at the break point; that is the point that the airstream is transitioned into the diffuser, the venturi effect, (ground effect) forward of that point is amplified due to the extensive differential in pressure that results.
The undertray regulations, as they stand in FC provide extensive latitude for aerodynamic grip enhancement, and regardless of the "INTENT" of the rules, if they allow a diffuser at all, they allow ground effects within the constraints outlined in SCCA's dimensional restrictions. I agree with Todd in that the rule as written is a complete contradiction and would serve us better by replacing the phrase: "Ground effects are not permitted" to "Ground effects are limited to the following specifications".
Todd works for me and is spending too much time online conversing about subjects he is not qualified to offer authoritive arguments. While his enthusiasm is appreciated, his lack of experience should not me taken for anything other that his desire to learn through interaction. I appreciate your interaction with him because I feel that if he sticks with this and adds some tangible experience to his enthusiasm, he has the ability to develop his skills to a notable level.
I appreciate you interaction but please understand his experience level and don't hold that against US.
C SHAW
;) I'm sure he's the ONLY one on here to ever have done that...:ha:Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
Good luck with the venture!
Gary
Tunnels are not allowed in FC or FF, but is stated only in the FF rules section - 9.D.7 - which governs FC also, and is not overridden by anything stated in the FC rules. This rule addition came into being in '99.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
Yes, the "No Ground Effects" rules is bogus! We've known that forever, but can't get them to change it!
As long as you abide by the 1" rule as written you have some degree of latitude because a 1" deviation is a 1" deviation no matter how you slice it.Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
True, up to a point. The problem lies in determining what they want to see and don't want to see.
History shows us that they want to see the bottom surface in the controlled area to be basicly flat, with allowances made for normal useage distortion, and radiuses at the edges. The old Pro rules allowance was only 1 cm, not 1 inch, and the vast majority of cars were built to that spec. Try much beyond that, and you may find yourself protested by the stewards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
This brings us right back to the need to employ a paranormal psychic in order decipher the "Intent" of what these rules actually provide for. Am I to understand that racers must have in there possession some old rule book that has not been printed since God was a Corporal, in order to figure it all out. No matter how you slice it, it is a complete brain fart. Racers and constructors are spending a butt load of money to participate in these events. A lot of money is being spent by a lot of people and is a complete abortion to expect that these matters be left to be defined under the "COP OUT" phrase "INTENT OF THESE RULES". To create regulations that are designed to be ambiguous for the intent of being ambiguous is complete and utter nonsense.
Regardless of the intent is imagined or implied, the stated one inch variance is allowed because as it is stated, it becomes an defining statement to what has preceded the sentence. If you take the argument that 1" channeling is not allowed then likewise a functional diffuser is also disallowed because it also violates the disallowing of ground effects. It seems OK to have a diffuser so long as it is not functional. What a crock.
I have been away from club racing for many years and as I am going through all this, I am asking myself "Is it worth it?"
It is the job of the Race Engineers and Designers to exploit every advantage possible from the semantics that are the rules. Due to the cost involved does it also make sense to staff and army of lawyers in order to further protect that interest?
Someone implied, something to the effect, "Simply contact SCCA and get a ruling before hand." I had a good laugh on that one because any issue that may seem plainly clear to one person, does not pass muster based on the way another person interperets the "INTENT" of the written word. After all green looks like brown to many people. I bet you can imagine what brown looks like to me.
I am thinking I should delete what I have written for the sake of being politically correct, but I won't. This goes way beyond this grouind effects rule. The ambiguity can be interpereted as nothing other than intentional.
My chosen corse of action will be to address these issues proactivily using formal channels in order to protect my investment. Afterall it is a "CLUB" right?
C Shaw
As a steward, I was taught that we should not try to determine intent (either of the competitor or the club), but to read what the rule says. Therefore, rules like "a 1" variation" seem clear. It is measureable. Furthermore, comments that "SCCA HQ said it was OK" don't fly. We read the rule as written and judge it as we see it. While there is sometimes a lack of unanimity, we do make a ruling. As a competitor, you have the right to appeal a steward's finding to either the SOM or the National Court of Appeals. This is the only way a ruling becomes definitive.
I've been through this on several occasions, and found that answers provided by the club office may be true, but the question may have been wrong. For example, a Ferrari racer appealed me when I DQ'd his car for weight. He had asked the club office if his car was legal as raced in the Ferrari series. They said "yes," but the weights in the GCR were different. Had he asked what his minimum weight was, he would have gotten a different answer from the club.
Yes, it's a lot like making sausage...somehow the product works, but the process isn't pretty.
Larry Oliver
Your frustration is shared by just about everyone who has had to deal with these rules since they were written, and then modified, and then modified, and then modified .... ad nauseaum. The ambiguity wasn't intentional - the writers weren't smart enough to even recognise that there WAS ambiguity!
Currently, when you look at the undersides rules, you have to remember this : FC construction is governed first by what is stated in the FF rules FCS D.6 through D.7.h. Shaping of the undersides in the controlled area is stated in FCS D.7.e. Further allowances or restrictions strictly for FC are stated in the FC rules. This is all stated in the rule book.
D.7.e states, in part, that no diffuser undertrays or venturi tunnels are allowed. This rule covers both FF and FC. The FC rules then grant a diffuser allowance in B.2., but no venturi tunnel allowance.
The "no ground effects" rule was originally written when "everybody" understood that it referred to venturi tunnels, not to the scientific understanding of the term. When the diffuser allowance was added, there weren't enough brains in the room at the time to understand that those two terms were in conflict with each other, and that no one thought of "ground effects" in the 25 year old simplistic way any more, so we have the current idiocy where no one knows what the rules actually mean - a 1" shaping allowance is given, yet no description of what constitutes the forbidden shaping. We even had one CRB member thinking that you took rake into consideration when looking at that 1" allowance!
With luck, this situation may change shortly.
Thanks Larry,
It is in our nature to gripe, but the point I am attempting to get to in a roundabout way, is that, as a constructor, I do not wish to be forced into a situation of laying out costs to change customer cars to meet some spec based on an interpretation change made after the fact and after homologation. With respect to parts made and offered after the fact, it can be painful when being forced, due to business etiquette, to accept returns, on parts interpreted to be disallowed due to “INTENT” but legal as per the written words.
R. Pare, I agree with your interpretation of how the FF regulations form the basis of the FC rules, however a channel is not a venturi tube. A venturi tube requires some degree of hourglass type change in cubic volume over length in order to be considered a venturi. Unless the air volume is condensed prior to entry into the channeled void, air velocity cannot therefore be increased, and employing conservation of momentum principals, the boundary layer remains constant, provided that a splitter divides the airflow. On the other hand, if the leading edge of the undertray is curved upward, then venturi effect can be obtained in the transition area, however in the area that the surfaces remains parallel in relation to each other the airflow remains constant minus drag.
Employing inverse funneling (divergence) can produce a venturi effect but only at the transition edges. This is the basis for a NACA duct, even though the total volume changes, the transitions create accelerated boundary layer airflow. Inverse funneling, is not a venturi tube, it is considered to be a diffuser. In order to be considered a venturi, it would have to have positive funneling into the inlet. A diffuser makes up the exit portion of a venturi but is not a venturi unto itself.
The way I read it, diffusers are permitted anywhere on the bottom of the car but in the area between the aft of the front tires and forward boundary of the rear tire, any deviations in the undertray are limited to 1”. You can have as many diffusers as you like provided that when you measure anywhere across the restricted area of the undertray, there shall be no deviation greater than one inch.
Channeling has a different purpose. Channeling is used to force compliance of the airflow under the car. This works similar to fences on an aircraft wing. They promote the airstream to smooth out longitudinally. They also help to increase the surface area of the undertray which controls turbulence and flow migration, Increased surface area promotes a reduction in boundary velocity which has both positive and negative effects. Any advantage is to be determined by the designers intent, but this is not a venturi tube. The greatest advantage to channeling is that it tends to concentrate flow lines and direction of airstream. This can do wonders for high speed stability and how well the car remains planted upon initiating change in direction or acceleration and deceleration.
In summary, if we allowed a one inch variation, it is a one inch variation which is completely quantifiable and specifically diffusers (exit funneling or divergent channel), then this overrides the FF undertray restrictions, however, FC does not “seem” to allow undertray inlet convergent funneling.
I would be completely happy with this specific regulation if the initial wording was changed to “Ground Effects shall be limited to….” Instead of “Ground Effects are Prohibited”. The rest of it would make sense then.
I am taking issues because, if by some wild chance that I can construct faster cars, I don’t want them thrown out due to technicalities created out of spite.
I am looking forward to having our products compete with what the other constructors are making. I believe we all have the same intent with what we are doing and the more competitive this all becomes the more attractive the race venues are for growth. If I didn’t feel this could grow, I would not risk what I am risking.
C SHAW
The "Technical Glossary" in the GCR, I find it to be really lame and weak on many entries. FIA has a far better one. We have to work on this.
That is, for the sake of the CLUB.
CS
This is where getting a ruling on your design before production comes in. You pay your $$, and get an opinion that is (supposedly) law if you get protested.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
True, and I see no reason why you cannot employ channels if you think you can gain an advantage. Quite frankly, though, 90% of the club won't have a clue as to what you are doing, and would probably protest just because they don't understand and think that you are indeed employing "ground effects".Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
I feel that it does, simply because a forward-sloped inlet to the undersides does not meet even the wildest definition of a "venturi tunnel". Not too sure, though, just how they would fare in a protest - again, you are going up against people who really don't understand the subject very well and have all sorts of pre-concieved notions.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
And yes, the Glossary is pretty bad in a lot of its definitions! We are trying to get that fixed, but I wouldn't bet my beer money on it!
as a Club member that has submitted a number of 8.1.4 requests to the Club Racing Office this year, each with a certified check for $300, I can tell you from first hand experience that "process" is wanting to the same order of magnitude as the basic GCR. while I have talked with several simply outstanding stewards in my efforts to get an objectively verifiable understanding of the rules as written, they are the exceptions with most in my view being from the school of thought that says "they'll know it when they see it"......
key technical words with NO Club definition and words with completely unworkable Club definitions are the rule, not the exception. some key technical words and phrases have Club definitions that seem to require use of a Club unique voodoo physics apparently only taught in Topeka.
after submitting a 8.1.4 request, there is no guarantee you'll get a straight answer, a forthcoming answer, a logically consistent answer, an objectively verifiable answer, or a useable answer. YMMV.............................................. .........
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
Art, Richard and Corey,
You each raise good points wrt inadequacies in the GCR, and since we are a CLUB that depends on volunteers, I would like to extend to you each an invitation to volunteer to join the Formula and Sports Racer Advisory Committee to help rewrite the GCR sections you feel are insufficiently clear, poorly written, or just plain wrong.
What do you say?
Stan
Stan:
I've already submitted complete re-writes at least twice over the years, with the latest being this last spring, and you have seen plenty of posts that have pointed out some of the idiocies in the GCR - hell, you've even made commentary yourself. Included were submittals for items in the Glossary, as well as a proposal to finally get an official rules making process outlined and in the GCR so that we can avoid a repeat of the Elan manifold fiacso we went through this winter. Both the CRB and the BOD were included in the submittals.
As a CRB member, you already have the authority to get this done without any new official personel coming into the picture. I've already spent way too many 100's of hours in an unofficial advisory capacity.
I would also add that I believe that manufacturers should not be in official positions within the club - too many opportunities for others to level charges of undue influence, favoritism, conflict of interests, etc. The rules that the racers all play to should ultimately be decided by the racers themselves. Manufacturer input is necessary, if for no other reason than to keep bad information from becoming official policy, plus it is the manufacturers whom are usually best informed on the technical aspects.
The best role for manufacturers is to get together as a group at the request of the club and advise on a particular matter, as was done when the '86 rules were originally written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
You can rest assured that I will be very active in order to protect my investment. I disagree with the concept that has been raised against constructor involvement. I am a member of SCCA! I can assure you that every one of the producers have an investment involved that is magnitudes greater than that of individual racers. Without our products you don't have what you need to go racing. For those that do not care for manufacturer interaction with the evolution of the organization, you need to consider the spec racing. With all due respect, constructors are racers too, but we race through our clients instead of directly, except I know that many also drive. All members of the club are granted the same oportunity to provide input to the competition board, all members of SCCA have the same rights to run for office, all memeber should considder it a reponsibility of their membership to be active in participating with the shaping of what the club is or will be. For those that expect me to risk a butt load of money on developing this club racing market and a going concern servicing that market, and not have input, you are nuts. Commerce makes racing possible.
Stan, The following was drafted last noght but I wanted to think about it before posting it. Considder this as written last light.
"I have been reading through everything imaginable relating to SCCA and its intended operation. I don't think the protest and appeal process is really the best place to solve these issues because "precedent" is hard to establish due to the difficulty in searching through cases. If I am wrong, please fill me in.
The regulations are not actively reviewed and repaired for the sake of making them better. The process is only accomplished based on formal motions made through the competition board which then makes recommendations to be put forward for the formal thumbs up or thumbs down. As members of SCCA, it is really our responsibility to initiate actions for the good of our class.
I don't believe that anyone here is asking for wholesale changes in what the rules are as much as to make the rules more concise and definitive as to setting the standards that we are to interpret in the construction and modification of our cars. I believe that basic foundation of these classes are, for the most part sound, but I believe it is imperative to clean many issues up.
I am new here so I would welcome interaction with those that are proactive with this process. Like any organization, there are always a few people that grab the bull by the balls and shake them and then there are more that stand back and watch while complaining about the results gained by those that actually did the shaking.
Who of you are those that grab the bull by the balls? These are the people that I am reaching out to because I would welcome collaboration on with respect to any formal actions that I will take to clean these things up.
Good clean rules are not more or less restrictive, but are immensely simplified in interpreting. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with what is the intent of a rule but that intent must be clearly quantifiable and verifiable with minimal interpretation. Due to the size of my investment here, I will be taking every effort necessary to protect and grow that investment. I want all the competitors to be able to focus on racing not on ability to manipulate paranormal interpretation of variable reality.
In summary, it is my goal to make SCCA competition more attractive to a greater number of potential participants and constructors, specifically in the non spec car ranks and more specific, formula and sports car venues. I feel that providing clarity in the regulation, is vital to stimulating growth which is to the benefit of the general membership, competitors, team owners, constructors, vendors, promoters, track owners, and even the communities that our events take place. This can only happen through active participation by all members."
Thanks
C Shaw
[quote/]
Todd works for me and is spending too much time online conversing about subjects he is not qualified to offer authoritive arguments. While his enthusiasm is appreciated, his lack of experience should not me taken for anything other that his desire to learn through interaction. I appreciate your interaction with him because I feel that if he sticks with this and adds some tangible experience to his enthusiasm, he has the ability to develop his skills to a notable level.
I appreciate you interaction but please understand his experience level and don't hold that against US.
C SHAW [/quote]
Did I get thrown under the bus?
Boss, as I said to you, I think I was very clear with everyone as to where I am on the totem pole. I will attempt to be more constrained. Sorry guys.
Todd
Todd:
Don't be afraid to ask questions or offer opinions, even those that may sound stupid - that's how you learn in this business! No one here will hold any misconceptions you have against you. Some day YOU will be the guy passing along your knowledge to the next generation.
No one has said anything about not allowing constructors to be involved - involvement can take place in many forms, with the 2 main categories being official capacity and unofficial capacity.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
I happen to be against official capacity because of the conflict of interest it can bring about - yes, I've seen it happen, it has been part of why these rules are a mess, and it has pissed me off to no end.
Our current situation in politics is due to just that - politicians manipulating situations for their own benefit rather than for their constituants.
I personally won't put myself in that sort of position simply because I don't want anyone to ever get the idea that I've somehow influenced things to benefit myself rather than the racers.
Todd: The GCR gets modified by means other than by protest. At least that's what I got from your post.
A well thought out request to the CRB, with a proposed solution is one method. I've used it to good effect more than once. Yes there are holes big enough to drive a transporter through, and some people will torture the GCR to limits not ever envisioned by the writer and re-writers. The torturing is done by Scrutineers, Stewards, friends of friends, though not nearly as oftern as racers. :D
As a National Scrutineer, I take the GCR as B&W. If it says you can't you can't. If your floorpan deviates less than an inch between the axle centerlines it's compliant. I don't care how you use that inch. I'm not going to determine what a "diffuser" is, beyond what is in the glossary, if it really is in the glossary.
It will be interesting to see if we can get the FF distributor section cleaned up this year. It's only been pointed out annually since before the move to Topeka.
If there is something in the GCR you don't like or feel is in error, a well reasoned, clear definition and proposed solution will get official notice.
Sometimes they do rule on a well reasoned request with a result that does not meet your expectation. Life goes on.