Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wright
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak
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.
Maybe you don't understand FF racing in the US ? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
Oops - didn't see the winky! :) :)
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 problemchild
Better call Saul...love that show.Quote:
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
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.
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
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
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
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 Chris Livengood
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
Previous post.Quote:
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
Note the reference to downforce.Quote:
Originally Posted by jnovak
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Livengood
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Livengood
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Offcamber1
Especially so in that rules changes should be fact based. Facts have no emotion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jharvey
The rules WERE stable until the club went bone-head and allowed an exemption for these cars. It should never have happened in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Offcamber1
looking at several videos and the results, the 25 lbs was a pretty decent estimate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wright
Do you even know which cars are wide pod cars in the race results you looked at?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak
I guess you knew the knew the finishing weights of all the cars in the videos you watched. Another well done scientific conclusion. Those Honda’s are winning most of the races, why are you not changing the restrictor size? Perhaps because race results are not scientific data?
Since you are using this though as your scientific conclusion & believe the at most 5 races where the cars were run with this penalty, what is your theory on the 100 so races where these cars ran in FRP at the same weights? How were Spectrums run by similar teams with similar type drivers able to compete & win? Why do you once again, as someone else wrote, choose to cherry pick data?
You have cost people tens of thousands of dollars with your decision without even listening to those in the class. Bob Wright even provided the verbage that could be inserted into the GCR to prevent development. Instead of taking this & not costing people money it was then decide to revert back to rule 1. Way to go.
Weren’t many of you who decided upon this the ones who contributed heavily to the thread about an extremely inexpensive race car that could control costs just a month or so ago? So how is it you don’t care what you decide for others who have current legal cars. That makes no sense to me at all. Don’t give me this is to eliminate development line as Bob gave you that out already. Don’t give me the FF & FC rules are the same so we couldn’t limit it as you easily could have covered it under FF as you do with engines & weights.
You seem to think that Jay is solely responsible for the FF rule change. It even seems to have affected your typing skills. Perhaps you should think about this and post rationally tomorrow.
Marty
Perhaps, I doubt I will change my mind. I still believe that facts matter to support a decision & having a feeling doesn’t count.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Nygard
No dog in the hunt... But seems to me if the decision was based on actual data might be fair to share it.. I don't know.. call me crazy for thinking logically
There does seem to be conflicting information coming from the different members of the CRB and FSRAC that have posted in this thread
What if I was to spend my own money & took cars & had them tested in a wind tunnel? I am considering doing this but would need a few things answered first. If I did so what information does the CRB require as you listed you had a report showing significant downforce that overcame the drag correct? If so what is considered significant downforce? For easy of use just give me a percentage number over narrow pods so I can work with that. Also, after I spend my money coming up with data to look at showing different information then what you may have will you allow the cars to run straight up? To eliminate development Bs take Bob’s wording and add it to the GCR.
I am considering doing this but before I waste my money & you say “No” we don’t care & aren’t changing our opinion I would need you to advise.
Also going forward you say the Club has no money to test to get information, perhaps as a suggestion you might wish to ask if people who are effected by your decisions if they wish to donate to get the required data. I know I wasn’t for any information or data when the weight penalty was added. Secondly after writing my letter, as the process works, I wasn’t asked for any information either even though I have thousands of laps in a narrow pod Mygale that you could compare to a wide pod Mygale.
Perhaps I should write another letter with my suggestion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak
The 25 lbs. equalization isn't based on the wind tunnel data, it's based on several videos and the results. So it sounds like you'd be wasting your money.Quote:
Originally Posted by steve bamford
more bull****Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Livengood
Now the other alternative change that was discussed within the committee was to keep the rules as originally written for the USA that limited the width to the existing rule that has been in place for well over 30 years. That way if you wanted to race FF in the SCCA with your new Mygale or other European legal FF car all you would have to do is to totally replace the side pods and the radiators etc. Instead the FSRAC recommended the addition of 25 lb sdded weight with no other penalties. It looks like now you get the other option on 7-1-18.
In the meantime since the 25 lb weight was originally added to the european spec cars, there was not a single letter written to the CRB letter system asking to reduce the weight to the standard weight. Where were all the complaints and letters. between the initial change to the weight rule and the start of this thread?
Not ONE LETTER.
Sorry Jay, you are the one writing false info. This thread was started Jan 18, 2018, my letter was sent December 27,2017. Below is the Fastrack Update.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak
FF
1. #23681 (Steve Bamford) Request Weight Reduction to Euro Spec Card
Change the Alternate Vehicle Allowance as follows:
Car must comply with published English FF regulations (Formula Ford 1600 – Formula
Ford Championship of Great Britain: Dated 01/01/2010; Version 1) Article 3 (Bodywork & Dimensions) except that (e ective 07/01/2018) bodywork, rear spoiler(s) and any attached components except for suspension components shall not exceed a maximum width of
95cm (37.40 inches) as per 9.1.1.B.4.c; Article 13 (Cockpit); Article 15 (Safety Structure); and Appendix A excepting Wheel width, and ground clearance and (e ective 07/01/2018) maximum width as per 9.1.1.B.4.c. Allowed Engines: 1600cc Ford Kent or 1500cc Honda per SCCA rules. Tires, wheels, transmission, weight and all other items not speci cally governed by the aforementioned English rules must comply with current SCCA FF rules. Competitors must have the English FF rules in their possession and present same upon request.
Change 9.1.1.B.20 as follows: 20. Weight A. Formula F 1. Ford Cortina Engine: 1060 lbs.
2. Ford Kent and Honda Fit Engines: 1110 lbs.
3. Cars complying with the English FF rules under the Alternative Allowance Table which exceed the maximum allowable SCCA body width of 95cm add 25lbs. E ective 07/01/2018 all FF cars shall be required to meet the maximum allowed width as described in 9.1.1.B.4.c.; at such time this provision (3) shall become null and void.
Crickets....fortunately Apexspeed shows you people viewing so many of the ones who have commented & made the decisions decided, at this point at least, to ignore this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bamford
My apologies Steve. You are absolutely correct!Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bamford
I had forgotten that you recently sent a letter in to the CRB system.
Or maybe they are off at the 24 Hr race and have better things to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bamford
Sure possibly but as I said they went online & viewed it. I’m ok waiting but I want to make sure it isn’t missed.Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
I reached out to Mygale in France & no one from SCCA has contacted them to ask for any information at all about their cars. I'm surprised that would not be considered part of the decision making process, at the very least ask them for some simple information.
Perhaps I've lost my mind but wouldn't that be something people in the position to make these decisions might consider doing? I'm ok being told I'm wrong, I welcome it, but just do so with some information.
It is apparent Steve followed the prescribed method and submitted his thoughts to the CRB. I have no idea what rationale, if any, was presented along with his suggestions as stated above. This brings up a couple of points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bamford
First of all, whenever someone presents their views to the CRB, they obviously feel strongly that their views are appropriate and well-thought out. It is, to them, obvious that these views should be adopted. And, they are usually offended that their views are not accepted. Steve says he is OK with being told he's wrong. That's a good attitude. However, I would not use the term "wrong." They just did not agree with him, for their own reasons, which may be quite convoluted. I do agree that some form of logic be granted him explaining why his views were not adopted. I do not agree, however, that all pertinent data be divulged. If this were done in every case the logistics of such exercises would be enormous. The member must, by nature of the beast, accept the Club's stand. He may, obviously, respectfully ask for clarification from the CRB/FSRAC. It may or may not be forthcoming.
The other issue that this situation brings up is one the Club has dealt with for years. When members want to add another car to a group, especially one that does not meet all of the criteria of that group, the Club has (IMO) bent over backwards to try to assimilate these cars. The inclusions of pro cars/alternate vehicles into Club groups (atlantic is an especially good example of this) has always created problems. Was there a pressing need to include Mygales (or other Euro-spec Fords) into the US spec FF group? Was this just an example of a couple of individuals wanting to run these cars, or was it a situation where Mygale was trying to establish itself in another market? How much politics was involved? How much did the inclusion of the Euro-spec Fords increase the CLUB car count. (I do not consider the FRP.)
In any event, when cars are added thusly, someone's ox is going to get gored. As Jay pointed out, they could have just disallowed any rules alteration and made the cars conform fully to US specs. IMO this is probably the best way to handle this issue.
I also do not agree with Steve that the Club should have contacted Mygale for their input and/or data. The sourcing and collection of that data is the responsibility of those wanting to alter the rules.
Good post Charles,Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Warner
On your one point about not asking for Mygale for information, how is that one piece of information can be used to come up with a decision that costs members money & there is no responsibility to get information from anywhere else? The first ruling to add the 25 lbs there was no aero information provided as far as I know. It wasn't until the next change made that some wind tunnel testing was provided, as we have been told. So therefore what info was used on the first decision?
Also to add to my post, I have lots of data that could be looked for a narrow pod Mygale, but someone would have to ask me for it when making a decision & request wide pod info. I'm sure originally we could have provided that info if it would have helped.
As for Mygale, they wasn't even an inquiry for information, for wind tunnel or anything else. I still believe there are always two sides to a story & when making a decision as such we are better to have more then one side.
As far as letting the cars into the SCCA & problem it creates, that was done after my car was raced & changed so from my end I do not know if any pressure or thought behind allowing it although that is a different topic altogether.
Steve,Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bamford
When I was on the FSRAC we always relied on the members to provide the logic/rationale/data for their requests. I feel it is both incumbent and necessary that these individuals provide their own ammunition. That way the onus of correctness of the information is on them. The Club may or may not have a need to verify the information. A cogent and well-presented argument, with attendant supportive data, goes a long way in lending credence to the member's input. It should not be the Club's responsibility of expending resources to get that info. As we have seen from this thread, several keep asking for information that is, patently, not available.
It is obvious there is enough "blame" in this situation to go around. Not having a dog in this hunt, I am not up to date on all of the machinations that have gone on, or who has what invested in which cars. I do know I have seen a lot of vitriolic rhetoric bandied about that will do nobody any good, and muddy the waters further.
Probably best to take the whole situation and present it to a third grade class. Both sides make their case and let the kids decide. Works every time.
Here is the Mygale response to is there more downforce created: “there is no gain, just safety and a little bit more drag. No aero advantage due to the high of the side pod”
I’m sure high is meant as height but remember French is the native language.
Also interesting they wrote about safety as I did not mention anything about that & I don’t believe they even knew this discussion is going on here.
Now this is just the manufacutes quote, take it however you wish but here is more information.