Especially so in that rules changes should be fact based. Facts have no emotion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jharvey
Printable View
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.
Is that statement about the 40mm step pods or the flat bottom pods ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bamford
Not to my knowledge but for fairness & transparency from my end I will ask.Quote:
Originally Posted by stonebridge20
Here is what I asked: Over here in North America some are saying the wide pods have a downforce advantage when run low compared to 95 cm wide or less width cars. Is there an advantage with the flat bottom running low as possible over a narrow pod car.Quote:
Originally Posted by stonebridge20
Answer: No Advantage.
So, y'all realize that the the 25 lbs was added because of the potential to generate downforce not because they already do right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bamford
To actually build side pods that generate low drag downforce, someone will need to spend a boatload of money on aerodynamic development, composite building and wind tunnel time. The 25 lbs was added to discourage those someones that have those boatloads of money.
Steve
Are they willing to share the data that brought them to the conclusion that there's "no advantage" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bamford
SteveG- see post #70
My understanding is the British rules were specifically written to not allow someone to design in an aero advantage. I believe the Mygales are designed to those rules.
Unfortunately that is not how it has been presented for potential, it was that it does actually do so. At least this is how I read it. As I mentioned before Bob's wording could be added to GCR to avoid the issue of development.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bamford
Unfortunately I do not have that info & are just passing along the manufactures message. I did make sure I said early to take it however you wish as it does come from Mygale.Quote:
Originally Posted by stonebridge20
I have attached some older copies of the British Formula Ford (Duratec and combined) rules. It is worth noting that from as far back as 2007 the side pod bottoms had to be within 1 inch of the floor. Moreover, British Formula Ford rules it declares that all cars built post 1/1/1996, their side pods floors must be within 1 inch of the undertray. Also, downforce and "downthrust" are explicitly prohibited. There is no mention of the FIA in the lateral protection section, and in fact Ford Publishes these rules, not the FIA. Additionally, it doesn't appear that there was much European Formula Ford activity post 2005, with exception of the British series which remains active. The only references to wide side pods rules I can find specifically state that they are the result of British rules, no reference to the FIA was made. The GCR (2013 copy) actually references "Cars complying with English FF Rules" specifically referencing the 2010 English rulebook (1 inch deviation). I'll keep searching, but there doesn't seem to be any FIA primary source data at all.
Wide pod reference on the RF06 - http://www.thekentlives.com/index.ph...aford/thecars/
Wide pod reference on the 2005 Ray - http://www.rayracecar.com/about_us.htm
2007 rulebook (too large to attach) -https://web.archive.org/web/20070519012430/http://www.britishformulaford.co.uk:80/regs/2007FFDuratec1600Version01.pdf
The FIA regulations from 2010 and 2015.
I am out of pocket so to speak for the next two weeks, but thought I would try to clarify a few things that seem to have been skewed while I have a moment.
The wind tunnel information was provided and considered by the FSRAC before ANY action was taken. This information, as with all information which is provided to the Club, is treated as proprietary and confidential.
The requirement that all cars meet the long standing overall body width requirement (elimination of the spec line allowance for deviation if running under the UK rule) was announced in the 5/2017 Fastracks. Due to some logistical issues the rule was not formally voted on until the Convention earlier this month. The rule will become effective 7/1/2018.
The FSRAC is comprised of accomplished individuals who have devoted their time and energy to this Club on behalf of other members. They make their decisions after serious debate and consideration. In this instance they had good information and thought the proper thing to do was to get all of the cars back onto the same set of rules so that moving forward there would be no basis for concern that a wide or narrow car was advantaged or disadvantaged. Like the rule or not, it moots the discussion. It is time to get back to racing.
Regards,
John
Nah, we need another 4 pages of arguing about this. What else am I supposed to read during lunch?
Kind of presents a paradox doesn't it??
Cover is only valid until 07/01/18Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
Respectfully, no, it wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
What was said in that (and I'd already checked this before and went back to double-check) was:
'For 2018, the CRB will recommend that all FF cars must meet the standard SCCA bodywork dimensions.'
That is a far different thing than announcing a rule change.
Then there is NOTHING in any SCCA publication about the rule change being accepted until the February Fastrack.
Of the dedication and good intentions of the people on the FSRAC, I have no doubt.Quote:
The FSRAC is comprised of accomplished individuals who have devoted their time and energy to this Club on behalf of other members. They make their decisions after serious debate and consideration. In this instance they had good information and thought the proper thing to do was to get all of the cars back onto the same set of rules so that moving forward there would be no basis for concern that a wide or narrow car was advantaged or disadvantaged. Like the rule or not, it moots the discussion. It is time to get back to racing.
That doesn't mean that, in this case, they haven't botched things up pretty badly.
As you say, it's time to get back to racing and the first official word that cars that people fully expected to run this year would be illegal is in the February Fastrack. And the last anyone heard that it MIGHT be ruled that way was in May of last year.
As it stands today, the only rulebook that a new competitor in the class can get will still tell him that his English FF is completely legal.
I'm sorry, but I really don't think that's very fair.
Brings a tear to the eye really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tifosi
My lunch breaks would have been a lot more boring had we been able to admit that there was no FIA evidence and that the change really had to do with a slip up from several months back.
Hi,
I just received the 1-JAN-2010 1st revision Formula Ford Kent rules from the UK (F4 Championship Technical Delegate) as called out in the FF GCR. I believe this is the correct set of rules as the SCCA GCR notes: Cars complying with English FF rules; "Car must comply with published English FF regulations (Formula Ford 1600 – Formula Ford Championship of Great Britain: Dated 01/01/2010; Version1)"
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...id=76914&stc=1here is my factory Mygale side pod w built in lateral protection structure . This added
Structure is extremely strong...
It is obvious that someone in England believed safety was important .
Second page of the 2010 english ff rules states.
- no changes have been introduced to the current cars,
Except for the safety requirements of lateral protection structures on 1996 and later cars only.
Also - on page 15..
- 3. Lateral protection structure (with a picture)
(S) maximum width including lateral protection structure.
Wider , safer , pods w lateral protection structures were introduced to the class .
I believe somewhere in this thread , it was somewhat dismissed that wider pods were introduced for safety.
I am no engineer , just a heavy equipment operator , so I'm probably not as brilliant as most on this forum ,
But , if someone t-bones me while i'm racing my FF Mygale for a 5 dollar trophy and a bottle of sparkling wine , common sense
tells "me" , any added protection for my body is better !!! and wider pods w lateral protection structures were added for safety not enhanced performance.
I understand there is still the 1" height confusion , but it's obvious , safety was behind the rule change in English FF ..
See you out there this year w my safer factory wide pods. Personally , I dont give a f"*k about a scca protest DQ , I race for immediate personal enjoyment and nothing else.
Go ahead everyone , start flaming !
It is just such a sad situation. Nobody is affected by this in any way, but a dozen people who invested in the class, and who are now getting screwed. Thanks SCCA!
what happened to getting all cars back onto the same rule set, see below to what I am referring to. I guess the same rule set lasted for a week or two & now it’s ok to change? Doesn’t this contradict what your rational was above? Please advise if I have taken this out of context to be fair to yourself. I do like the “what do you think”, not sure why this approach couldn’t have been used for the side pods but I’m sure there isn’t a logical answer for that one that I will be given as it’s likely top secret stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
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 95 cm add 25 lbs. Effective July 1, 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.
4. Cars running with a sequentially shifted gear box shall add 25 lbs. to minimum weight.
B. Formula Continental
1. Pinto Engine: 1200 lbs.
2. Pinto with aluminum cylinder head: 1200 lbs.
3. Zetec Engine: 1200 lbs.
4. Cars running with a sequentially shifted gear box shall add 25 lbs. to minimum weight.