FIA Safety Pods

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

steve where did i ever mention 60mph?

What is the average FF lap speed at the tracks we run in the SCCA? I guarantee you that it is much higher than 60mph.

I do not know the answer to your last question. The answer depends on the L/D of the vehicles in question

What is the typical difference between the L/D of wings in free air and in ground effects? I use wings as an example because this is very well understood and there is a lot of data on this subject.

Are you aware that some shapes can make more Df and LESS drag in Ground Effects than in free air?

BTW I spent over 1 years time period managing a wind tunnel correlation project using the same race car in EVERY FULL SIZED WIND TUNNEL in North Americar and 2 additional tunnels in Europe so that we at Ford Racing could determine which wind tunnel was the best for our needs.

Now this does not mean that I am some sort of aerodynamics expert, I am not. However I do have a solid understanding of the physics involved.

---

Jay, to be clear I never questioned your ability. I was asking questions to get the info that was conclusive to add the 25 lb weight penalty because I believe you are capable of coming up with that number based on your experience. You haven’t explained how it was determined, so why I keep questioning things.

My question using 60 mph was for cornering speed as you were using .5 mph in a corner increase in speed due to downforce. I am guesssing the faster we go the more downforce we create, correct? So that is why I asked at 60 mph & 90 mph how much downforce does the car create? You can’t tell me the car makes .5 more mph in every corner due to the downforce as that simply doesn’t make sense.

I did learn a thing about ground effect when I took my pilots license as well. Are you sayin the Mygale with widepods makes less drag with it’s extra downforce in ground effect then in free air? Is this conclusive that the widepods Mygales do this or is this a potential theory that it could be possible but not proven? I know this isn’t true though & therefore shouldn’t be said to support your side of the discussion. How do I know this isn’t true? If it were true then the Mygales widepod cars wouldn’t be down multiple mph’s in straightline speed to narrow pod cars including narrow pod Mygales. Please let me know how I am wrong with that statement.

I’m sure your undertanding of physics is multiple times better then mine is however the points you are using to support your decision even a simpleton such as myself can poke holes in which is what concerns me.

People have been building faster cars within the rules ever since FF existed. Can you imagine the conversations on apexspeed that would have occurred if it existed when the DB1 came out? Spend the money to make the car competitive or buy a different car.

#not a spec class

I can see and appreciate a lot of different views and opinions on this subject, but come on. They are race cars. Some are faster than others. If someone has a better design and it cost you $5,000 to bring your car to that level, either spend it or buy the other car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshall9

People have been building faster cars within the rules ever since FF existed. Can you imagine the conversations on apexspeed that would have occurred if it existed when the DB1 came out? Spend the money to make the car competitive or buy a different car.

#not a spec class

I can see and appreciate a lot of different views and opinions on this subject, but come on. They are race cars. Some are faster than others. If someone has a better design and it cost you $5,000 to bring your car to that level, either spend it or buy the other car.

---

I hear what you are saying & my only arguement is that the car was legal in SCCA & then rules were changed. People bought & own these cars are told now they are illegal. That is wrong of SCCA to do this & the reasoning for adding 25 lbs was BOP as was explained which is where I have an arguement. Then after being told to write letters the car was made to be illegal. That’s not right & the reasons given why the weight penalty, in my opinion, are unfounded.

Steve,
I get it. I just don't think these threads flow in a productive direction....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marshall9

Steve,
I get it. I just don't think these threads flow in a productive direction....

---

I don’t disagree with you, I’m struggling to know what would be a productive direction. Letter writing as suggested by SCCA leaders only made the issue worse for widepod car owners. Litigation is suggested as not the right way to go. What else is left then having an dialogue here? Any suggestions are welcome on how to resolve this problem.

Did I miss a juicy lawsuit threat?:rolleyes: Seriously? SMH. If I was going to go all Saul Goodman over this I'd have to reevaluate my life priorities. :p

Steve - love ya man, but you keep making statements that just are not accurate. You ask questions, we give you answers. That is done for transparency, aid in understanding, and help further constructive dialog. Again, if you believe this conspiracy is happening, send a resume and join the party. How many conspiracy orchestrating groups offer that?

What I find amusing, is the same people (not you specifically) sent me PMs, public attacks, and emails to the very same effect with the spec tire debate when I helped lead that. Over and over I said radials would be bad for me, but if that's what helped everyone else so be it. I was called a protectionist, shrill, bribed, self serving, and a liar. Funny - how many times have you seen my car on radials? I'll help - never. Same here, except now apparently I'm old now with the 'good ole boys club' comment. Just because I like Matlock doesn't mean I'm old. My governing principle is what keeps costs down for the largest group of people.

Second, how is this a Mygale focused vendetta? Where do these rules say "this only applies to Mygale"? How about Firman, Ray, Spectrum, Listec, Tattus, or all the other manufacturers that also make Euro-spec pods? If you think there are people who have selfish motivations - name some names and their motives. Free and open society right? Start with me - what am I 'protecting'?

You mentioned what it takes to win. And you are very correct. Everyone knows what goes into a winning package and there are many variables. Which is why, as best can be done, a scientific method of using data (wind tunnels, dynos, FEA) is preferred over looking at time sheets and results. It helps isolate a variable and analyze that in a vacuum.

You claim the cars were legal - and that they were made illegal because of Mr. "Slow Ass Wanker" complaining. Again, not entirely accurate. That's scapegoating a fictitious character. For now the 6th time, here is how this came about as The Purple One, LaRue, and others have said multiple times. The Euro cars all were required to have a step in the sidepods to the floor. Something around 40mm. That step was required in the Euro rules to not create a downforce potential to exploit, and obsolete cars while still adding some side impact protection. Now, when the first Euro cars started to come over their legality was referenced to the Euro rule book in regard to the roll hoop and the sidepod step and width. Somewhere along the way that was lost in translation and the step rule vanished. When it was recognized, the question was what to do? Do we allow a potential df exploitation that could make all the cars made legally to the US rules less competitive that could also make a need for two sets of sidepods (one df, on low drag)? Spec line? Should the US cars (hundreds) built to the US rules have to change to adapt to the Euro rules, or should the Euro cars have to fit the US rules as first required, and still intended. 280+ days ago this was first announced that the US rules should be followed, as initially written and intended. The 25+ lbs was to give time for the widepod cars to narrow them, while still being able to attend SCCA events. We did not want two rule sets, two weights, or references to two different rule books for the Runoffs.The 1/7/18 requirement stemmed from that. This is not handicapping, it is making cars comply to the US rule book as intended (and initially required) and in place since the '86 rewrite.

You may not agree, and that is fine, but that is reality. If you want, you are (as anyone is) always welcome to give me a call. Send me a PM, and I'll shoot ya my digits.

Thanks for the reply Reid, I respect your opinion & others that watch Marlock as well.

Unfortunately you or others haven’t answered my question that there is conclusive evidence these cars produce more downforce & the increased drag of the wider pods are not slowing the car down. You came up with a 25 lb penalty which equates to at least 3/10’s per lap, what math was used for that?

No where did I read the cars would be made illegal until after receiving a response to my letter. Maybe I missed it but if that was the plan at the time of adding the 25 lbs last year, why wasn’t it stated then as you state that now? Did I miss that on the 2nd rule change? I could of that is why I am asking.

You mention in your post that the 25 lb rule was not put in to handicap the cars but to get (force/nudge) people to convert to narrow pods, which it has for some. Where I have an issue with this is John LaRue stated previously that this was for BOP reasons. You are the first person here saying it was so they would convert. I’m not saying you are wrong but we are receiving conflicting updates. Not PF, JL or JN have said this that I have seen. It was all performance related to add the 25 lb. Thus why I keep asking about the extra drag vs downforce which people can’t directly answer.

This effects Mygale cars at least 25:1 based on the number of cars that are here in North America compared to other cars. Also they have beating the slow ass wankers. I can see how the rules are to protect other cars from coming up with some new side pod but I can also see how the CRB can write rules to have min height as was originally allowed.

Reid you talk about your involvement with the Radial & how you championed it for the good of FF. Please remember as I have openly stated several times I own narrow pod cars & have spent the money converting them. I would still convert them if I had widepod cars as I firmly believe narrow pod cars have the advantage. I am disagreeing with the decision you have come up with for the same reason you worked hard for a spec tire, because I believe it is better for the FF community as a whole & want to help participation. Please remember this point.

As for adding my name to list to volunteer, I am not qualified to do what you or others do. This topic I tend to have more first hand knowledge but otherwise I wouldn’t be much help. As mentioned before though I do volunteer my time on multiple boards within the industry I do have more knowledge then most. So I do understand what it takes to sit on boards & the tough decisions that are made. I also believe in this day & age all info should be available if questioned which is what I wrote earlier. I would do that for a member or members of the boards I sat on. Via this thread & others some info is being provided but it is one piece at a time & some of it is contradictory such as BOP vs forcing people to convert as the ultimate goal.

I hope I answered most of your questions as I didn’t reply directly to your post as it would make this one huge & went off memory. If I missed anything please let me know.

I’m asking this simply for the sake of discussion, as I currently have no dog in the hunt..

As stated, this topic seems to have stemmed from the “lost in translation” 40mm step. When the Mygales were spec lined into SCCA, was it assumed the step was still in play? Did the step go away only after teams realized the rule crossover didn’t account for it, or were the cars shipped to the states without it from the beginning?

I’m over simplifying this, but would enforcing the rule as originally intended with the 40mm step be an option, or has data shown the downforce advantage exists with or without the step?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Bamford

Jay the cars are multiple mph slower in a straight line, don’t believe me ask Eakin. Also how DF is needed to be generated at 60 mph to create a .5 mph advantage? How much downforce extra downforce is required at 90 mph to create a .5 mph difference? How much extra downforce do the wide pods cars generate? Surely you have that info as you are using it to justify your decision. There must be some math you have that can justify this otherwise how did you come to a 25 lb weight penalty?

& your statement isn’t 100% correct either, while I agree df helps improve lap time, you can not deny that increased drag is a negative to improving lap time. So what numbers do you actually have? Or is it a secret we don’t want the Soviets or North Koreans to get a hold of?

---

lets think about the physics here:
1. The Mygales with wide side pods are several mph slower in a straight line.
2. They are 25 lbs heavier, thus given the same hp they also accelerate a bit slower
3. The Mygales with the wide side pods turn faster lap times and win lots of races

Given some bare bones understnding of physics. Think about it: How is this possible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

lets think about the physics here:
1. The Mygales with wide side pods are several mph slower in a straight line.
2. They are 25 lbs heavier, thus given the same hp they also accelerate a bit slower
3. The Mygales with the wide side pods turn faster lap times and win lots of races

Given some bare bones understnding of physics. Think about it: How is this possible?

---

Jay I hate to do this to you once again but your some of your statements are inaccurate. The info Purple Frog gave in previous posts which I am using as info is taken from when ALL cars are same weight run in FRP. So your point number 2 doesn’t hold water although I do agree if you add 25 lbs to a car it will be slower in a straight line. The info I was using & PF was when cars were equal weight, now they will be even slower in a straight line. Your not helping your arguement by posting this & surprised you would write this.

Point number 3 I will argue with you again. I hold the lap records at Mosport (CTMP as it is now called) & PItts Int raceway. I did so using drafting in a narrow pod Mygale. Lots of widepod Mygales compete & continue to compete on those tracks, why haven’t they beaten my times? I’m also with .005 seconds of race record at Road Atlanta in my Narrow pod Mygale. How could I do it with so little downforce? I argue with that they turn faster laps, where is your data to support that? Now have they won more races....yes I will give you that one but when the only Pro teams running are using these cars then it kind of makes sense doesn’t it? The last year a Pro team running a Spectrum competed in the FRP series it won. The last few years only Pro teams have run Mygales so it is easy to guess why they are winning. Making up over 50% of the fields as well what do you expect?

Come on, you’re letting me shoot fish in a barrel so to speak....oh & I did watch myth busters when it didn’t work but I’m sure you get the reference.

What I find it so interesting or disheartening is that CRB refuses to see there could be another side to this at all & uses notes like this to try to justify the decision made instead of saying, hey maybe there is something to what others are saying. We have no definitive data to support our decision 100%.

I on the other hand can see your side of things, not wanting further development that causes car to be faster or as Reid said two side pods used for different tracks. Like I said earlier you are good at making rules to cover that a thinner pod isn’t made or whatever needed to keep the status quo but you seem hard pressed to prove your decision is correct & there is no possible alternative. I have an issue with this & thus why I am disagreeing with you so adamantly. I do respect your knowledge & others on the CRB along with the time commitment but I’m really sorry that this can’t be looked at objectively as it seems to me to be an I’m right & no one will change my mind type of scenario.

If im wrong on disagreeing with your points 2 & 3 please let me know why & how.

As to your phsyics question, I can easily answer how these cars can be faster even with a weight advantage, I’ll let you answer it with these two question though...do you think that possibly driver skill such as a FF driver signed by Red Bull in Europe who came out of SCCA & FRP might have more skill then most Club Racers? Are you saying teams that prep at higher level & more skilled drivers don’t contribute to winning more so then the vast majority of club racers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Bamford

Jay I hate to do this to you once again but your some of your statements are inaccurate. The info Purple Frog gave in previous posts which I am using as info is taken from when ALL cars are same weight run in FRP. So your point number 2 doesn’t hold water although I do agree if you add 25 lbs to a car it will be slower in a straight line. The info I was using & PF was when cars were equal weight, now they will be even slower in a straight line. Your not helping your arguement by posting this & surprised you would write this.

Point number 3 I will argue with you again. I hold the lap records at Mosport (CTMP as it is now called) & PItts Int raceway. I did so using drafting in a narrow pod Mygale. Lots of widepod Mygales compete & continue to compete on those tracks, why haven’t they beaten my times? I’m also with .005 seconds of race record at Road Atlanta in my Narrow pod Mygale. How could I do it with so little downforce? I argue with that they turn faster laps, where is your data to support that? Now have they won more races....yes I will give you that one but when the only Pro teams running are using these cars then it kind of makes sense doesn’t it? The last year a Pro team running a Spectrum competed in the FRP series it won. The last few years only Pro teams have run Mygales so it is easy to guess why they are winning. Making up over 50% of the fields as well what do you expect?

Come on, you’re letting me shoot fish in a barrel so to speak....oh & I did watch myth busters when it didn’t work but I’m sure you get the reference.

What I find it so interesting or disheartening is that CRB refuses to see there could be another side to this at all & uses notes like this to try to justify the decision made instead of saying, hey maybe there is something to what others are saying. We have no definitive data to support our decision 100%.

I on the other hand can see your side of things, not wanting further development that causes car to be faster or as Reid said two side pods used for different tracks. Like I said earlier you are good at making rules to cover that a thinner pod isn’t made or whatever needed to keep the status quo but you seem hard pressed to prove your decision is correct & there is no possible alternative. I have an issue with this & thus why I am disagreeing with you so adamantly. I do respect your knowledge & others on the CRB along with the time commitment but I’m really sorry that this can’t be looked at objectively as it seems to me to be an I’m right & no one will change my mind type of scenario.

If im wrong on disagreeing with your points 2 & 3 please let me know why & how.

As to your phsyics question, I can easily answer how these cars can be faster even with a weight advantage, I’ll let you answer it with these two question though...do you think that possibly driver skill such as a FF driver signed by Red Bull in Europe who came out of SCCA & FRP might have more skill then most Club Racers? Are you saying teams that prep at higher level & more skilled drivers don’t contribute to winning more so then the vast majority of club racers?

---

ok steve. You think that it is all driver and prep and i think it is mostly physics. Lets sgree to disagree.

I do know that great prep is 90% of winning. There are lots of racers who understand this. Not just you and a couple of pro prep shops. BTW the FSRAC has members who are prep shop owners who totally understand this issue and still voted for the weight penalty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

ok steve. You think that it is all driver and prep and i think it is mostly physics. Lets sgree to disagree.

I do know that great prep is 90% of winning. There are lots of racers who understand this. Not just you and a couple of pro prep shops. BTW the FSRAC has members who are prep shop owners who totally understand this issue and still voted for the weight penalty

---

There are many who understand this, I never stated you didn’t understand it or others on the CRB didn’t such John, Mike or Reid who have weighed in here from time to time. I make this statement because the slow assed wanker doesn’t really understand this.

I gave you an arguement with data to support my disgorgement with your statement & you agree to disagree. If you have data to support your decision then please add it. You posted info that is incorrect & I gave you the correct info. I don’t understand how we can disagree on that.

Like I said earlier I am not knowledge enough to sit on the CRB but I can give you LEGIT info on this topic to help. If you wish to agree to disagree even though I have provided info that directly contritdicts the reason you came up with your original ruling that is simply not good for the Club. It is ok to be wrong, I’m not sure why some have a hard time with that. I’m wrong often, but I can admit it when I am.

If you’re right then why do I have an arguement at all & have provided info to argue my point that you can’t dismiss as illegitimate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

ok steve. You think that it is all driver and prep and i think it is mostly physics. Lets sgree to disagree.

I do know that great prep is 90% of winning. There are lots of racers who understand this. Not just you and a couple of pro prep shops. BTW the FSRAC has members who are prep shop owners who totally understand this issue and still voted for the weight penalty

---

I have no clue who on is on the FSRAC so how many of them run or have run a Mygale with widepods so that they have first hand experience about what they are discussing?

I do realize you can’t cover everything but at the time the 25 lb weight penalty ruling came in I had the only narrow pod FF Honda car in North America as far as I know. Not once was I asked for a single piece of information from my car. Looking back now do you think that was a mistake? Or do you prefer to only have limited information to make these decisions?

After I wrote my letter, as recommend by members of the CRB to review the weight penalty guess how many members asked for data from me or any other information? How can I not view this as being narrow minded at best?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Woodmancy

I’m asking this simply for the sake of discussion, as I currently have no dog in the hunt..

As stated, this topic seems to have stemmed from the “lost in translation” 40mm step. When the Mygales were spec lined into SCCA, was it assumed the step was still in play? Did the step go away only after teams realized the rule crossover didn’t account for it, or were the cars shipped to the states without it from the beginning?

I’m over simplifying this, but would enforcing the rule as originally intended with the 40mm step be an option, or has data shown the downforce advantage exists with or without the step?

---

Dave brings up a very good question. Where did the non 40mm step side pods come from and why did they show up if there wasn't a performance advantage ?

So nobody can offer primary source data or any statistically significant data? Sounds like we have done our research. Godspeed to SCCA FF. I was assured they were well intentioned, that has to count for something.

It is unbelievable that this discussion is still continuing.
Anybody that believes that the wide FIA safety pods are a performance advantage has no understanding of FF racing on US race tracks in the year 2018. And that is the most polite way possible of saying it.
See pics below ...... Which car below would you rather be driving when trying to complete the pass on the last straight on the last lap of a race in a pack of cars? And what car would you rather be driving if you spun and were sitting sideways in the middle of the track in front of that same pack of cars?
.http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...id=76472&stc=1http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...id=76473&stc=1
Several years ago, I removed the FIA safety pods from Steve's car, at much expense, replaced radiators, and built custom pods that met the SCCA rules. That would allow us to take advantage of the much more aggressive SCCA floor rules should we want to. It was a successful conversion. It was done for one reason, namely to gain a performance advantage on the other Mygales that were still using the FIA safety pods.
After this non-issue was created last season by the wise people at SCCA, the folks at K-hill (Tonis Kasemets and Kris Kaiser) did similar conversions for the SCCA Runoffs. They apparently were pleased with the benefits and left the narrow pods on the cars when they went back to the Pro events. Over the winter, their conversions were cleaned up and look real good. I don't know the details but they seem to have reworked radiators and exhausts. They do not look cheap.
So it would appear that Tonis, Kris, and I are a bunch of DUMMIES, and the wise folks at SCCA know more about making FFs go fast than we do. This is the same group that interfered with FB, and tried to introduce their own engine rules that all but killed that class. This is the same group that keep USF2000 cars out of FC. This is the same group that managed the F500/600 civil war to its happy state. This is the same group that cannot get a spec tire in FV after 55 years. Instead, they worry about taking away the "unfair advantage" of club racers like Rob Albani, Ken Bouquellion, and Andrew Dobb.
This stepped floor issue is just a red herring. Of course, the different mounting of body panels on race cars affects downforce and drag. Without any data to compare to SCCA spec cars, their "conclusive data" is a irrelevent.
Those of us with Mygales, know that the big ugly pods are the only real negative feature about the car. We drool over the clean narrow treatments we see on the Swifts and Pipers. So ironic that people cannot recognize our weakness, and consider it a benefit worth penalizing! And so sad that people feel the need to cause trouble over this ..... and forcing a handful of racers to spend tens of thousands of dollars (collectively) to make their cars faster.

For those SCCA people that have never seen what they are saving the FF class from.

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...id=76474&stc=1
Here is a standard FIA safety pod from a Mygale.
This is not the top. It is the bottom.
It is the standard Mygale FF pod mounted flush with the floor that goes on all the Mygales shipped around the world. It cannot mount any other way. I have never seen a Mygale-Honda that was not delivered with this pod mounted as such. Steve's was the prototype and I have had 4 others through the shop.

The level of downforce is such that they mount with five 5mm (3/16") diameter bolts into nutserts in the frame rail.

Clearly, technology from a 1965 F1 car!

Greg,

I understand that SCCA FSRAC/CRB wants the rules to stay the same for all FF's. Maybe that won't change. But I want to say something that shouldn't be at all taken as a swipe at your position. And maybe you've already proposed this, but...

IMO, the issue with wide sidepods is not so much that these particular ones create a lot of downforce, but what someone intending to create significant downforce could do with a slight (within whatever rules are in effect) re-contouring of the bottom surface.

So, maybe the approach should be to craft (or copy, maybe from the FIA/British rules) a very strict rule set regarding not allowing the bottom contour to be constructed to create downforce. IIRC, the FIA sidepod rule about entry and exit radii already attempts to do that.

So I think a proactive approach along these lines might have a decent chance of gaining support of SCCA's rule-makers, if by some chance, they could be swayed from their current position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveW

So, maybe the approach should be to craft (or copy, maybe from the FIA/British rules) a very strict rule set regarding not allowing the bottom contour to be constructed to create downforce. IIRC, the FIA sidepod rule about entry and exit radii already attempts to do that.

---

That is exactly how it has been in FRP and was supposed to have been in SCCA all along. You either run FIA pods and floors or you run SCCA pods and floors. There never was, is, or should be, any "son of Radon" concerns here. If that has not been the case, then that was SCCA people screwing that up. I absolutely do not want wide pods that are free or even to SCCA specs as in FB. I expect that incorrect perception and ignorance has fueled this issue. I have repeatedly explained the factual matters and history behind this but people who don't understand the class or its recent history are intent to dwell on irrelevant "conclusive" data.

How can any informed racer look at the pictures above and believe the yellow car (with pods like the white pod in the 3rd pic) should be penalized or banned because it has an aerodynamic advantage? All this bother and potential cost to fix a problem that does not exist!

Equally bizarre is that no one seems to care about the legal ramifications of making people remove industry standard safety features that are internationally recognized.

Take a look at this:

http://www.f1600series.com/pdfs/euro_F1600.pdf

The relevant section is 15.7.1. It seems to me inserting that language into the FF rules set is not a 'spec line' rather simply an alternative sidepod rule. If everything said above is close to accurate, then no one is going to convert a 'USA' version to the European one for performance advantage.

Quote:

---

No where did I read the cars would be made illegal until after receiving a response to my letter. Maybe I missed it but if that was the plan at the time of adding the 25 lbs last year, why wasn’t it stated then as you state that now? Did I miss that on the 2nd rule change? I could of that is why I am asking

---

Steve it was stated in the TB that appeared in the May 2017 Fastracks that all cars would be required to meet the SCCA spec in 2018 - this is not something that was slid in at the last minute or in response to your letter. Please see below:

It was originally intended that FF cars meet the British FF rules that include wider sidepods/bodywork than allowed in our spec, be required to keep the sidepods raised from the floor of the car 1" to eliminate any aero advantage. At the time it was believed the 2010 British rules required this. It has come to our attention that there are cars not meeting this requirement and searching through the rules we cannot find this in either the British rules or our rules.

The FSRAC recommends a 25# weight adjustment to cars meeting the Brittish FF spec under the Alterntaive Vehicle Allowance table and a requirement that all FF cars meet the SCCA spec for 2018

https://dk1xgl0d43mu1.cloudfront.net...pdf?1492707314

See pages 17-18

Quote:

---

Where I have an issue with this is John LaRue stated previously that this was for BOP reasons.

---

You either misunderstood me or I did not do a good job in my writing. The FSRAC did not want to get into dealing with BOP adjustments as between the spec lined cars and those which met the formula, thus they determined it would be better if every car in FF was required to fall into compliance with the formula and play by the same rules. The well argued positions in these threads demonstrate how difficult and complex mixing spec line cars with cars built to a formula can be. It is without dispute that running these or any other car under a formula is the most pure form of competition as then it can not be said that a particular car is faster because the rules to which it complies are more favorable than those to which another car has to comply. There simply are no excuses.

All the best,

John

Gents, here is what the problem that the FSRAC and the CRB was facing.

1. Allow the lowered european side pods into the USA racing thus forcing older FF cars with the 95 cm max width sidepods to change to remain competitive

Or

2. Try to equalize the lowered european sidepods with a simple weight addjustment

I still think that the FSRAC made the right recommendation and that the CRB made the right decision that was best for the VAST MAJORITY of the FF racing community in the USA.

Why would anyone 'be forced' to change to the wide sidepod? Look at the specs I just posted. Look at the empirical evidence that both Bamford and KHill spent money changing to the narrow sidepods, not the other way around.

The picture of the wide sidepod car is extremely helpful with perspective.

1) What happened to the FF "formula"? This yellow car is clearly outside that.

2) Me? I'd rather have the wide sidepod car. I'll take the high L/D ratio.

3) If the FF and FC rules are supposed to be connected (which I think is dumb), then I'd like to do this with an FC car.

4) If I bought an FC and made sidepods as wide as the yellow car, then I would expect SCCA to approve it since they approved it already in FF.

Just as in the lengthy and argumentative FC thread, the root cause is again implementation of modern design and safety into decades old "formulas" with their older technologies. The thought process within SCCA Club has followed the rules making mentality for non-purpose built racecars through creation of "spec lines". This is completely counter to and fundamentally disastrous for a "formula".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

Gents, here is what the problem that the FSRAC and the CRB was facing.

1. Allow the lowered european side pods into the USA racing thus forcing older FF cars with the 95 cm max width sidepods to change to remain competitive

Or

2. Try to equalize the lowered european sidepods with a simple weight addjustment

I still think that the FSRAC made the right recommendation and that the CRB made the right decision that was best for the VAST MAJORITY of the FF racing community in the USA.

---

What? 1. You have Competitors who actually race in this class telling you they are competitive with widepod cars. No one in their right mind would build widepod cars from a narrow pod car. Once again you providing info to support your decision that isn’t correct & most can easily see this.

2. What equalization were you attempting to accomplish? Finishing positions? I keep repeating the fact that team prep & driver skill is overlooked. Simple example, a mid pack at best FRP Spectrum driver a few years competed in SCCA Majors prepped by a good team. I believe he went on to win almost all races he entered in SCCA Makors & won his conference. He was much better then most of his Club competition yet as I say he was mid pack or better in FRP. Can’t blame the car for not winning in FRP as I believe this was the year the Spectrum won the FRP Championship against a bunch of widepod Mygales.

Other then finishing positions what data did you use to come to your decisions?

Maybe i misread this but 2. Really sounds like an attempt to be a BOP, I thought John earlier said it wasn’t based on a BOP decision. Here is what he just wrote with my question before hand: Where I have an issue with this is John LaRue stated previously that this was for BOP reasons.
You either misunderstood me or I did not do a good job in my writing. The FSRAC did not want to get into dealing with BOP adjustments as between the spec lined cars and those which met the formula, thus they determined it would be better if every car in FF was required to fall into compliance with the formula and play by the same rules.

Im very confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Wright

Why would anyone 'be forced' to change to the wide sidepod? Look at the specs I just posted. Look at the empirical evidence that both Bamford and KHill spent money changing to the narrow sidepods, not the other way around.

---

Bob, just because they decided that the narrow sidepods were the way to go does not mean that the decision was correct from a performance perspective. Look at the results from the Runoffs.

The thoughts were that the older cars would be forced to change if they want to compete at the front. Fine if you do not care if you cannot run at the front. Look at the results of the Runoffs.

Now perhaps it is the wrong decision not to let a "FORMULA" change/modernize but that is the decision that was made to protect the investment of the vast majority of the class membership.

This subject is primarily about the difference between a conservative rules philosophy vs a philosophy of change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Bamford

What?
Im very confused.

---

yes

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/imag...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Steve Bamford http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/imag...post-right.png
What?
Im very confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

yes

---

Clearly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

Bob, just because they decided that the narrow sidepods were the way to go does not mean that the decision was correct from a performance perspective. Look at the results from the Runoffs.

The thoughts were that the older cars would be forced to change if they want to compete at the front. Fine if you do not care if you cannot run at the front. Look at the results of the Runoffs.

Now perhaps it is the wrong decision not to let a "FORMULA" change/modernize but that is the decision that was made to protect the investment of the vast majority of the class membership.

This subject is primarily about the difference between a conservative rules philosophy vs a philosophy of change.

---

If you are using the results of the Runoffs as your decision then you also need to include that a narrow pod Mygale was on pole with a time of 1:44:601 vs first widepod car time of 1:45:703. For me these results really mean nothing as it isn’t the way to decide how to equal cars based on race results but I am not physic major or engineer so I really don’t know much.

This subject is primarily about the difference a conservative rules philosophy vs a philosophy or change left the barn long ago when you agreed with the new rule set to allow widepod cars in. There is still zero evidence provided that these cars are faster then narrow pod cars. Your results based theory doesn’t hold water as there more to factor in which you seem to not want to.

Ok... I looked at the runoffs results, and more important, the grid:

Holden- narrow
Horan- narrow
Cowley- wide
Bensen-none
Perona-narrow

Race:

Cowley- wide
Holden- narrow
Kotyk -wide
Horan-narrow
Perona-narrow

I don't see anything particularly significant one way or the other in these results. Holden, Horan, Cowley and Kotyk have been at the pointy end of the FRP grid all during the year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Wright

Ok... I looked at the runoffs results, and more important, the grid:

Holden- narrow
Horan- narrow
Cowley- wide
Bensen-none
Perona-narrow

Race:

Cowley- wide
Holden- narrow
Kotyk -wide
Horan-narrow
Perona-narrow

I don't see anything particularly significant one way or the other in these results. Holden, Horan, Cowley and Kotyk have been at the pointy end of the FRP grid all during the year.

---

i have been waiting for someone to mention this and I agree Bob. Nothing significant and that is one of the things i meant Bob. The 25 lbs added to the wide pod cars made them equal and on race day a wide sidepod car won. Probably because they work better in traffic.

I guess my next question has to be how much advantage of downforce vs drag is there?

I ask because we saw no empiric evidence during multiple years of FRP results that there was any advantage (at equal weight) and we were watching from the moment we allowed them in at the request of Mygale. If we had, we would have done something about it. Clearly multiple teams saw an advantage in the narrow sidepods; enough to spend money. Spectrum elected to build narrow sidpods for our market even though they had wide ones available for the rest of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

i have been waiting for someone to mention this and I agree Bob. Nothing significant and that is one of the things i meant Bob. The 25 lbs added to the wide pod cars made them equal and on race day a wide sidepod car won. Probably because they work better in traffic.

---

Jay you are using one race to support your theory, however there are hundreds of races you can easily review on FRP series website. You choose to say they are equal using runoff results however if you want to use that why are you discounting qualifying times? The widerpod car was more then a second behind? How could this be if the car is far superior? I wouldn’t suggest we use one race or one qualifying results to justify your position but if wish to then please explain how Spectrum won the championship in F1600 against all the widerpod superior Mygale?

The car that won the Runoffs won because when the top 3 tried to go 3 abreast into a corner, the inside car got ahead, and the other two got racing for the next few corners. In that 2nd place battle, the narrow pod car beat out the wide pod car. Just an insane argument .... clearly without any understanding of FF competition.

Why not use Homestead/Sebring results? FIA pods 1 win 0 poles in 4 races. SCCA spec 3 wins and 4 poles.

The vast majority of the class is not affected by this decision in any capacity. The only ones affected are people that recently invested in the class. A complete non-issue, unless you are on the receiving end of the witchhunt.

It sounds like the same person/people who created the recent F500/600 and FB messes are determined to mess up another class. How many racers did we lose when SCCA tried to fix those classes. This would be a great discussion for engineers fighting to prove their theory is better than their friends, but inappropriate for a real life situation affecting real people.

This argument is getting beyond ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

This argument is getting beyond ridiculous.

---

Maybe you don't understand FF racing in the US ? ;)

Oops - didn't see the winky! :) :)

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...GkHn9Iozh5oNdw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by problemchild

Equally bizarre is that no one seems to care about the legal ramifications of making people remove industry standard safety features that are internationally recognized.

---

Yeah, bizzare. You removed the super safe Euro pods and put narrow death pods on Steve's car and your other Mygales before the rule correction from SCCA. Are you liable for putting your customers in cars that will surely kill them and spontaneously burst into flames?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

Yeah, bizzare. You removed the super safe Euro pods and put narrow death pods on Steve's car before the rule correction from SCCA. Are you liable for putting your customers in cars that will surely kill them and spontaneously burst into flames?

---

Better call Saul...love that show.

When we got it they were already cut by Beasley so it was legal for SCCA.

We are getting way too bogged down in minutia here.

FF is a formula, not a spec line class. I don't think anyone wants to start adding spec line cars to a Formula F. Who has the better, more stable rules; FF or FA? :eek:

The intent of rules are to limit costs, and therefore development as well as eliminate grey area and create a fair playing field. If the wide pods were allowed, and a change to the very long standing FF rules regarding max width was then changed, it would create a new area that could be used to gain an advantage, while opening a large can of worms. Just because no one has done it yet, doesn't mean someone won't pull a Scott-Tucker-turbo-600cc-bike-motor move and spend a ton of money to exploit an opening in the rules that would have been created. Also, keep in mind now that the FF and FC rules are joined at the hip, this sidepod change would also affect FC.

Several have asked 'why not release the data?'. The data was shared with, but not funded by, the FSRAC. It is the intellectual property (at a large expense) of the person who shared it. It would be unethical to divulge information that was shared with the FSRAC, which cost the person sharing it a substantial amount of money. Like has been mentioned, SCCA does not have the cash, nor should it, to spend on wind tunnel tests. When sound data is presented, it is preferred. Just look at this thread - same race results and each side can claim it as evidence for their position. Like Steve has said, a lot goes into winning a race. Even more reason why race results are so difficult to claim as end-all fact. That is why we use things like dyno results - to isolate the point of debate. A race result, imo, is pretty hard to draw a conclusive determination from.

Lastly, I speak for only myself. No one else, no other group.

The wind tunnel "data", if it exists as it has been suggested (tough to tell with no proof), still represents data cherry picking. If the argument is that the wide pods are beneficial to performance, and as a result it will drive up the costs for competitors as it is necessary for them to change over, then all it takes is some hard information to prove that this is indeed the case. Since the FIA has already done the work then why not provide that information? It's that simple. Moreover, we know the wide side pod cars are required to run at higher ride heights as per the FIA, why not start there as a viable equalization? If the entire argument is based on the FIA produced data (the privately held data null), why not maintain some level of coherence and make the FIA approved side pods run FIA approved ride heights? Finally, as for the sanctity of the FF and FC rules-set, hasn't that ship sailed? The cars have developed long past the days when a conversion was reasonably simple.


For the record, I don't think the 25 lbs are going to do squat. I just don't think the argument for it has been vetted either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Livengood

The wind tunnel "data", if it exists as it has been suggested (tough to tell with no proof),

---

So I'm making this all up because, why? I, or anyone, would be straight up masochistic to want to punch this beehive. There is something like 20+ people involved with just the FSRAC. That would be quite the undertaking to coerce that many people to go with this ploy. See post 91.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Livengood

If the argument is that the wide pods are beneficial to performance, and as a result it will drive up the costs for competitors as it is necessary for them to change over, then all it takes is some hard information to prove that this is indeed the case. Since the FIA has already done the work then why not provide that information? It's that simple.

---

The FIA did what? I don't know if they did or didn't test the wide pods. Do you know if they did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Livengood

Moreover, we know the wide side pod cars are required to run at higher ride heights as per the FIA, why not start there as a viable equalization?

---

Slight correction there....they WERE required to run higher, 40mm. Again, what caused this issue is the Euro rule of having to have the 40mm step went away at some point. And since the SCCA GCR referenced that rule, when it went away in Europe it had the unintended consiquence of the same over here while that was never the intent. Also, this would create a secondary rule set - in a formula class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Livengood

If the entire argument is based on the FIA produced data (the privately held data null), why not maintain some level of coherence and make the FIA approved side pods run FIA approved ride heights?

---

It is not based on the FIA data. I don't know if there is any FIA data. News to me. If you know of it, I'd like to see it. Really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

So I'm making this all up because, why? I, or anyone, would be straight up masochistic to want to punch this beehive. There is something like 20+ people involved with just the FSRAC. That would be quite the undertaking to coerce that many people to go with this ploy. See post 91.

---

I want to specifically state that I am in no way making attacks ad hominem, or at the least am not intending to, if there has been that impression then please accept my most sincere apologies. Honestly, I believe that the tests happened and that likely the results are as reported. That said, until the data is released all we have are anecdotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

The FIA did what? I don't know if they did or didn't test the wide pods. Do you know if they did?

---

Previous post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnovak

One of the realities of this issue that i am not sure if it has been mentioned is that the original wide sidepod rules for europe required that the bottom of the sidepods were required to be a specific hight above the bottom of the chassis. I think the height was 40mm above the floor. This was specifically stated to prevent downforce. Then at some time later the 40mm rule was removed and the cars then could have the bottom of the side pods flush with the floor.

---

Note the reference to downforce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

It is not based on the FIA data. I don't know if there is any FIA data. News to me. If you know of it, I'd like to see it. Really.

---

Since there is no knowledge of the data, the FIA argument can pretty much be thrown out. It again is based on anecdotes, and it is likely that the FIA mandated ride hight and associations made are of false cause. Making a claim to the authority of the FIA does not exempt it from the vetting of the proposed reasoning, the same can (should) be said for the SCCA as well.

So we are left with the wind tunnel anecdotal "data" as the basis for the equalization adjustment. We (the club members) don't know the conditions of the test, the variables that were accounted for, nor are we privy to the the magnitude of downforce generated, the distribution of the downforce, let alone the methods that were used to generate those results. Was the testing done in a way as to draw conclusions that are significant across many makes and models or was it just one car? Did this car have any unique features? How many ride heights were measured? How much rake? Different rake at different ride heights? Was the same car measured in two configurations (wide pods and narrow pods), or were two different makes/models compared? Since none of these factors or the myriad of others are known the test results can not be replicated, so what conclusion can the club members draw?

I avoid the term "penalty" here, I don't want to imply that I am for or against the adjustment in any way, in fact I enjoy fair and balanced competition, I just think that if the adjustment occurs it should be logically sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Livengood

So we are left with the wind tunnel anecdotal "data" as the basis for the equalization adjustment. We (the club members) don't know the conditions of the test, the variables that were accounted for, nor are we privy to the the magnitude of downforce generated, the distribution of the downforce, let alone the methods that were used to generate those results. Was the testing done in a way as to draw conclusions that are significant across many makes and models or was it just one car? Did this car have any unique features? How many ride heights were measured? How much rake? Different rake at different ride heights? Was the same car measured in two configurations (wide pods and narrow pods), or were two different makes/models compared? Since none of these factors or the myriad of others are known the test results can not be replicated, so what conclusion can the club members draw?
.

---

Any testing of this nature if obviously beyond the scope of the Club. Yes, it's a club, with very limited resources. Would those of you with your knickers in a wad care to join together and fund the testing regimen as described above? Donate the use of your cars, as well, which would require several configuration changes?

A very simple issue has morphed into "all of this!" The way I see it . . . . .

Some racers wanted to bring non-US Fords into the US Ford sandbox. This was allowed, (even though it was known at the time it would eventually lead to something like this nonsense). As rules were a bit different, references were made to the FIA rules. In this particular case, wide side pods had been determined to (potentially?) provide more downforce. (Do not ask for the data or the reasoning - it is what it is. Even if tea leaves were used, you ain't gonna change it, so stop whinging.) A 40mm step was introduced as a methodology to thwart any such (potential) development of downforce.

Our Club simply referenced the FIA rule by Regulation Number, and not verbiage.

Fast forward a bit - for whatever reason (again, don't ask!) the 40mm step requirement disappeared from the FIA regulations. Ergo, it disappeared from ours by reference.

So, we now have some of our Ford folks who see the option of using the wide side pods with no step. (This was done for whatever performance advantage could be gained - it's the nature of the beast. Don't try to give me the Safety issue. That's bollocks!) The Club secured some data (for the third time, Don't Ask!) that indicated a possible performance advantage. They could have simply re-written the rules to require the step. Instead, they chose to add #25 to the altered cars. Whatever their logic was, it is what it is. Maybe they could have done it in a more professional or communicative way: that, I don't know.

Now we have some people whining about the costs of changing their cars to avoid the #25 increase and how it's going to put them out of business, pull their kids out of college, and they'll have to start working at the local car wash.

We don't have, nor will we ever really have, empirical information as to how these cars are going to stack up against the others. Get out there (in whatever legal configuration you choose) and play in the sandbox. If it is determined there is a definite, and demonstrable, disadvantage with one of the legal configurations, then petition the Club for a performance adjustment.

Whining about what data was used, who collected it, what wind tunnel was rented, how many multimillion-dollar-per-hour engineers were used, and making implied ad hominem attacks on the Club personnel, is not going to do any good. And, for those who have chosen to try to make a living in this precarious sport, you might think about your professional reputations before going off half-cocked.

If testing is beyond the scope of the rules makers, what qualifies them to make the rules?

I guess that's... the way you see it, Charles. That's a lot of whining (and hyperbole) for somebody denouncing whining. I asked some questions, it seems reasonable to me hat the rules makers could be accountable for their logic. Heck, I don't even own a Formula Ford, it's a sad day when the answer comes down to "I'm not an expert, but..." or "we have the authority to do it, so you'll have to accept it." On that point, you seem to agree. The SCCA is a club, not an authoritarian government, and lively fact based discussion can only serve to strengthen the club. That said, dismissing concerns as whining neither strengthens your argument, the argument for the equalization implementation, nor does it bring any real value to the conversation at large. Attacks ad hominem are a waste of time an energy. For the record, no where did I make implied or otherwise attacks ad hominem, I made that very clear in my previous post. At the end of the day, if the SCCA wants to make claims, the burden of proof (data) is on them. Of course it's still very obvious that they will do whatever they want without producing any proof, so I guess it's all just a moot point.

Charles to add to your post, it is not just a 25 lb penalty, it is now banned as of mid year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Livengood

The SCCA is a club, not an authoritarian government, and lively fact based discussion can only serve to strengthen the club..

---

It appears to me that the essential problem here is that "the club" is moving the the pieces on the chess board in the middle of the game without much regard for the effect it has on the participants. Can you blame them for whinging?

Having your pieces moved to your disadvantage sucks, particularly when it costs big dollars when they do. Multiply that over multiple cars owned by the same team and you have a sure recipe for discontent.

The problem with pi$$ing people like Greg off in this way is that sooner or later he'll have enough of trying to slay windmills and will find a stable series with stable rules, and real live purses, heading off to another sanctioning body and actually make some money doing what he does so well.

Think Midgets, for instance.

"The club" really can't afford to lose too many Gregs.

YMMV

Kip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Offcamber1

It appears to me that the essential problem here is that "the club" is moving the the pieces on the chess board in the middle of the game without much regard for the effect it has on the participants. Can you blame them for whinging?

Having your pieces moved to your disadvantage sucks, particularly when it costs big dollars when they do. Multiply that over multiple cars owned by the same team and you have a sure recipe for discontent.

The problem with pi$$ing people like Greg off in this way is that sooner or later he'll have enough of trying to slay windmills and will find a stable series with stable rules, and real live purses, heading off to another sanctioning body and actually make some money doing what he does so well.

Think Midgets, for instance.

"The club" really can't afford to lose too many Gregs.

YMMV

Kip

---

The club should also not cater to people like the Greg’s. Rules should be made regardless of whom does or does not like them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Offcamber1

It appears to me that the essential problem here is that "the club" is moving the the pieces on the chess board in the middle of the game without much regard for the effect it has on the participants. Can you blame them for whinging?

Having your pieces moved to your disadvantage sucks, particularly when it costs big dollars when they do. Multiply that over multiple cars owned by the same team and you have a sure recipe for discontent.

The problem with pi$$ing people like Greg off in this way is that sooner or later he'll have enough of trying to slay windmills and will find a stable series with stable rules, and real live purses, heading off to another sanctioning body and actually make some money doing what he does so well.

Think Midgets, for instance.

"The club" really can't afford to lose too many Gregs.

YMMV

Kip

---

The problem has nothing to do with them whining, it has everything to do with it their lack of empirical evidence for the rules change, but you are right on all accounts.