Printable View
A promised, new rules packages have been posted on the SCCA website. We want feedback so please take a few minutes and read the rules for electrified prototypes and touring cars and let us know what you think. Please be constructive and considerate.
Dayle
I don't need to read the rules, HELL NO, NEVER. This isn't something SCCA needs, only well-heeled racers will be able to compete in the classes and until you can figure out a way to reduce the environmental damage caused in the production of the batteries, we don't need to be adding to the environmental problems more than we currently do.
George
Very organized and well presented!
My problem is, and I expect will continue to be, that SCCA talks out of both sides of their mouths in terms of "big picture" class quantity and structure. One one hand, we have Stan Clayton and his cronies who have an agenda to kill off our traditional classes (because we have too many classes in existing race groups) and then we are adding new EV classes (because they can run in existing race groups.)
It would be a lot easier for me to embrace the new EV classes if I knew that my (or my friend's) classes were not going to be merged/killed to facilitate the new classes. The SCCA boards need to coordinate their actions into a unified policy.
We’re not killing off any classes with this proposal.….these EV classes will run with current (no pun intended) race groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
Dayle
BTW George, I’m a retired environmental chemist with 35+ years in the field. I know the impact of the chassis and battery production. Most of the materials used in Li batteries can be recycled. The technology to reuse, repurpose, recycle these materials will only get better in terns of cost adn efficacy with time and economy of scale. Its not the dire hazard you’ve been lead to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by CARSHouston
Dayle
I'm not worried about the recycling of the batteries as much as the original production of the batteries and the environmental damage and child labor abuses. I trust this reporter, watch these videos and tell me there he is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayle Frame
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2HneqfZGsM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptI6BRVC1Kw
Will there be FE ? or not.... because the acronym is already used !Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayle Frame
You copied my message, so you must have read it. Perhaps read it again. My problem is that SCCA has some of their people with the agenda of killing off traditional classes. SCCA also has people working to create new EV classes. Yes, I understand that EVs will run in existing groups ....... but so are the traditional classes that are being targeted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayle Frame
While you may not be killing my class(potentially) to facilitate new EV classes, somebody else is!
Well, this was inevitable.
A few questions that come to mind as I'm reading this:
- Classing and grouping - Specifically, how are these classes going to join the mix? ET1 and ET2 are presumably split so that they can go with the big-bore / small-bore run groups, am I right on that? It seems like this would have to be the case (at least early on) because there are relatively few race-prepped electric consumer cars right now, but down the line are we looking at having a separate electric group? Frankly the 6-7 group world is already pretty much at the limit of what we can handle and still have meaningful amounts of track time, adding more groups is dubious at best.
- Same goes for PE - is that going to be mixed in with the "wings and things" group? I feel like the added weight of the battery pack would make PEs the heaviest cars in that group and that could potentially be concerning.
- Local laws/regs called out in the rulebook - Does this also include track rules, or is the expectation that the track will have to be willing to make exceptions to host SCCA events? I know of one track which flat-out bans electric cars, which Majors events are held at, and I'm sure it's not the only one. I definitely wouldn't want to see that track taken out of the rotation just because of electric cars.
1/2. Grouping is up to the Regions as long as it meets GCR guidelines and I seriously doubt that there will be enough cars to warrant a seperate group so they will run within current groupsQuote:
Originally Posted by JoshuaJustice
3. Yes that includes track rules. Many tracks have indicated that while they are hesitant to allow EV's at present they are willing to consider them if they have guidence on the requirements for safely allowing them. The SCREV is intended to help Regions allay the fears of these tracks. Track rules also dictate items for ICE vehicles as well.
The work of the EVAC is not done in a vacuum, there has been communication with the tracks by SCCA and it is known that there will be adjustments made as the tech evolves for both SCCA and the tracks
let me guess. you use leaded racing fuel in your car?Quote:
Originally Posted by CARSHouston
P2 already has cars at 1500 lbs and P1 up to 1475 lbs so the weight of PE will not be outside the current classification.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshuaJustice
David
For those who have not seen some of the exploits of electric car owners, you can check out:
https://youtu.be/OAQWWgI2yvY
https://youtu.be/UBShy2MyHKM
Right now they seem to fit well in autocross and solo events, but road racing is inevitable, but complicated.
Class consolidation and elimination has been going on since Oscar was championing for less classes in the 1970’s.
Which classes was always the roadblock, and a theme for another thread…
ChrisZ
The EV people will sidestep the issue. The SCCA people will sidestep the issue. People connected to the oil industry would rather spew anti-EV propaganda. It will get ignored unless we recognize the threat, get pissed off and make it an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by FVRacer21
Stating the obvious, the easy way for SCCA to open up run group capacity for a bunch of EV Prototypes, is to obsolete FC and FA in the big bore Formula-Prototype race group. Many people believe this has been the agenda already (before the EV option).
I think those pushing for RV cars in SCCA club racing have conveniently ignored one inescapable fact: Unless one has a ton of money ( I would think 7 figures) to 1. provide the infrastructure for charging batteries between sessions (does anyone think that MO or Nelson Ledges or a whole lot of other tracks are going to do it?) and 2: To develop suitable batteries and the associated powertrain to last the length of a typical club race.
For these reasons IMHO I do not see this happening anytime in the near future.
So, infrastructure is certainly something that needs upgrading at tracks, and tracks/the club knows this. But, we're also not going to see massive change and dozens of cars overnight. But, we are seeing them, and starting down the path of having a set of rules that allows us to see the early adopters so that the club is better prepared when infrastructure meets technology and we do see bigger fields.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
So, no, we don't expect to see 20 PE's in a year. But 1? 3? Maybe. We've been seeing Production and at least one converted EV in Time Trials, Production and the EV-converted Formula Mazda are running at Solo Nationals (I co-drove) and people are asking about EV touring cars and Prototypes for Road Racing.
Waiting until there are 40 of them racing somewhere else isn't the way to do things, so we start somewhere - and that's what this is about.
Since I haven't found unleaded Sunoco or VP for a GT1 car, yes, I do use leaded fuel.Quote:
Originally Posted by griceiv
For my rotary powered car, I used unleaded pump gas.
I guess since you support EVs you support the child labor abuses that Communist China use in Africa for the mining of the materials for batteries.
Chris, what mods on the Tesla 3 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by FVRacer21
59:1 in a street car is gettin it done at LRP.
Jon, can you inform us on the rules that allowed an electric powered formula car to run at a national solo event? Everything I am reading in the published rules does not allow that car to run at anything other than a local region allowing it. which would make it illegal at any national event especially Solo Nationals.Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjon1
Yeah. A Modified.Quote:
Originally Posted by TedV
MODIFIED CATEGORY
All listed weights are with driver except where noted otherwise. Weights not listed default to the appropriate SCCA® Club Racing GCR (General Competition Rules) reference. “Car” is defined in Section 12. In the Solo® Rules Sections where preparation allowances are specified and if there are conflicts with the GCR allowances, the Solo® Rules shall take precedence.
Modified class A (AM)
Cars with a minimum weight of 900 lbs. with driver and a minimum 72” (182.9 cm) wheelbase, plus Formula SAE as specified in Section 18.5. Club Racing GCR-compliant Formula S (FS) and A Sports Racer (ASR) vehicles
may compete in this class.
18.4 SPECIALS
Cars not otherwise classified which meet the following minimum speci-
fications are considered as Specials and are assigned to Modified class A
(AM).
A. Bodywork
<NOTHING ABOUT DRIVETRAIN>
B. Chassis
<NOTHING ABOUT DRIVETRAIN>
And.. nothing about drivetrain...
Those are the A-Modified rules. So.. yeah. EVs are legal.
3.6 FUELQuote:
Originally Posted by racerjon1
B. In addition to fuels which are allowed by Section 3.6.A, Street Prepared,Street Modified, Prepared, and Modified category vehicles may use diesel fuel, any grade of gasoline, or any gasoline/ethanol blend. Gasolinesconsist entirely of hydrocarbon compounds. Gasoline may containantioxidants, metal deactivators, corrosion inhibitors, and lead alkyl2022 SCCA® National Solo® Rules — 413. Vehiclescompounds such as tetraethyl lead. Methanol is prohibited; other oxygen and/or nitrogen bearing additives are prohibited except for thoseoriginally present in fuel which is Federally approved for use on publichighways. Oxygen and/or nitrogen bearing oil additives are prohibitedin two-cycle engine oiling systems.C. Propane or CNG (compressed natural gas) fuel may be used in any category provided that the following conditions are met:1. The tank must be located in a safe location on the car, and be firmlyand securely mounted. This does not permit the cutting of vehiclesheet metal (e.g., the trunk floor) for tank installation in Street, StreetTouring®, Street Prepared, or Street Modified categories.2. The tank must conform to Federal and local container standards andhave an emergency relief/cut-off control.3. For use of propane or CNG as a fuel, no changes to the induction system of the engine may be made with the exception of the necessaryfuel lines to the carburetor or fuel injection. There may also be noother engine parts changed.4. The entire system must meet local ordinances covering the use andtransmission of compressed gas.5. Propane or CNG may not be used in combination with another fuel.
I see nothing allowing battery powered vehicles. Are electric batteries considered "hydrocarbon fuel"?
Show where Mod can have any other fuel besides hydrocarbon based please.
I had considered EV's to be fuel acceptable to public highway use or how ever the rules were written a few years ago. When the "hydrocarbon fuel" popped up a few years ago I figured that was a crafty way to remove the electric battery vehicles from competition. Or does the generator that charges the battery run on hydrocarbon fuel so that makes EV legal? FSAE hydrocarbon fuel cars are legal to compete in SCCA but Electric powered FSAE is not. Or is that incorrect too?
by the way, I sent in a request for EV rules 8 to 10 years ago, (Maybe more years as I have slept since then. the "fun with cars" question with Heyward was in the 1990s) similar to what the EVAC is now proposing and I was ... Thanked for my input....
So, you're having some of the same thoughts that some folks approached me with at Solo Nationals, and I said "I guess you'll have to protest then" and no one did. I realize this doesn't make it compliant, but there were certainly people who made it known to me they didn't like it there. If they did protest, I was ready if it came to that. (Of note, the car isn't mine. The car belongs to a father/son team in Texas who had never autocrossed before, and I was given the opportunity to drive it, and jumped at the chance.)Quote:
Originally Posted by TedV
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedV
The key lies here:
3.6.A. Says: Street and Street Touring® category vehicles will use fuel which is “Federally approved for use on public highways,” and is widely distributed and typically sold in filling stations, commonly called “pump fuel” with typical octane ratings or AKI (Anti-Knock Index) (R+M/2) displayed on the pump between 87 and 93.Quote:
Originally Posted by TedV
Commonly doesn't equal "always" and "typical" doesn't mean absolute. Electricity is certainly widely distributed and sold at (admittedly specialized) "filling stations."
The next lines are specifically aimed at octane limits and ethanol content, neither of which are applicable to Federally approved, common and widely distributed electricity.
In addition, EVs and Hybrids regularly compete at National level events, and each has won a national championship and if 3.6 applies, then it would apply to all classes and categories which it obviously doesn't.
18.5 handles FSAE, and it's even more clear that an electric FSAE car would be allowed IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by TedV
A. Vehicles constructed to any single year’s Formula SAE rules (1985-on) to include all FSAE safety items for that single year are eligible to run in SCCA® Solo® events.
B. In addition to FSAE safety rules, SCCA® safety rules per the applicable portions of Sections 3.3 and 18.4.A shall be met. Passing vehicle inspection at a prior FSAE event is not required.
3.3 and 18.4.A are not 3.6.. so even if 3.6 applied to Modified Category, the rules don't apply it to FSAE.
D. These vehicles are assigned to Supplemental Class FSAE, which may run as a subgroup of AM but shall be scored separately. An FSAE car may only compete directly in AM if it meets all AM requirements and specifications.
So - IF 3.6 applies, it might take the Electric FSAE car out of AM, but certainly isn't disallowing it from an FSAE class.
D.. continued: FSAE cars must also meet the following minimum criteria:
Current year FSAE restrictor plate and engine displacement rules. Intake restrictor requirements are as follows:
1. Gasoline fuel .................................................. ....... 20.0 mm (0.7874”)
2. E85 fuel .................................................. ............... 19.0 mm (0.7480”)
3. M85 fuel .................................................. ...............18.0 mm (0.7087”)
I'm pretty sure that electric FSAE vehicles don't have to meet any displacement or intake restrictor requirements, because they can't. Does this mean that the solo rules probably need a line about criteria for FSAE EVs, sure - but not having a line about that that doesn't mean they are not allowed, just that these rules as written are only concerned with vehicles using internal combustion engines fueled by gasoline E85 and M85. As a note, the very inclusion of M85 fuel here absolutely puts FSAE outside of 3.6, because 3.6.B specifically prohibits methanol.
All the techincal jargon and rules parsing aside, obviously we're in a fast-changing automotive landscape when it comes to EVs and hybrids, one that creates questions and differences like we're discussing right now that creates the confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by TedV
The EVAC was formed to help the different programs be better equipped to write smart rules to allow these increasingly common situations, to hopefully avoid the "thanks for your input" response when it comes to these cars in the future. :-)
so, having worked on the protest committee at Solo Nationals a few years and expressly instructed to read the rules as written...Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjon1
electricity does not meet any octane measurement you stated. meaning it is illegal as you state it.
because it was not protested DOES NOT MEAN IT IS LEGAL as the rules are written.
your appeal is not well founded and your fee will not be refunded. The rules as written do not allow Electric Vehicles. Welcome to the SCCA
I do, it does less damage to the fuel system & less hazardous additives that evaporate while used & stored. 100 LLQuote:
Originally Posted by griceiv
I also have 20 years of experience with battery powered material handling & construction equipment and have seen the results of poorly designed and/or maintained A/C equipment cause injury, death & environmental hazards.
I would not want to be a corner worker responding to an accident involving an EV - risk from electrocution (there is a reason the high voltage/amperage cables are orange), fire, the difficulty extinguishing a fire and the environmental hazards from the fire or even a battery pack that has been compromised. I'd also not want to be the driver in that car.
Mike,Quote:
Originally Posted by stonebridge20
Not a Tesla expert - just an lurker. Since I was into slot cars before IC engines, I alway wondered about electric motors for cars. If I was 30 years younger.....
Looks like they are all "bolt-on" mods. I was impressed with some of the cornering forces.
The issue I see with EV right now is that their strength is their weakness, The batteries down low aids in handling, but expose themselves to damage from running over things. There is a story on the Internet about a couple who bought a brand new Tesla, ran over debris on the highway, and the end result is not pretty - sort of like a magnesium fire - once lit, hard to put out...
Not ready for wheel to wheel racing - yet.
I think Charlie is using batteries not prone to fire.. Gives up some capacity for safety. :thumbsup:
Waiting for the great leap forward.
ChrisZ
I seem to remember running a regional at Mid Ohio back in the 1990's which had an electric car group. Cars were sponsored by engineering departments of several major universities and needed fork lifts to change battery packs. Most of the drivers were SCCA regulars. Anyone remember what rules they ran under?
(For the record, I'll declare right up front that I am anti EV in general, so I have a bias that won't be ovecome with persuasion. Or logic for that matter, s olets not argue about it. And I gave up racing with SCCA a long time ago, but did run with them for years).
As best I can tell from the preceding thread, the intention is to run EV race cars with existing ICE classes, correct? Now, we all have likely been in that position where, sitting in our FF, there aren't enough FFs or FCs to fill two separate grids, so we run a mixed grid. We have absolutely no say in that, it is up to the organizers to make that call. (As an aside, I recall being in an odd situation in the late 1980s, where my GT2 MGB was gridded with a Frisbee Can Am car - pandemonium ensued at Mosport....).
But a mixed FC/FF grid is basically the same car construction, one with aero and wider tires and maybe 20% more power. But about the same weight, same fuel, same safety systems, and the same safety worker protocol in the event of an incident regardless of what car goes off. That's not at all the case here...
Here, there would be fundamental differences that could result in dramatically different required responses in the event of a multi-car incident. This is NOT the case where the organizer is trying to make weekend logistics work out with no real material differences as a result of a class combination. In fact, its darned far from that.
So, I guess my question is: Should the existing drivers in those classes that are about to have EVs thrust upon them not have a say as to whether they think that a possible change in the risk profile they face is acceptable to them? You know, since they are the ones that have been actually funding the SCCA historically?
best
bt
Butch, They were run like an intercollegiate electric car league. Spec chassis and tires and shocks. Motors, controllers, batteries and drivetrain were student designed and built. I drove the car that Wright State had from 2000 to about 2005. The sponsor of the series (an electric motor winding industry group bowed out and it just died). Not sure about changing batteries with a forklift. Our car had either 16 or 24 optima red tops on each side. They were mounted on a tray which held 8 batteries. They could change all the batteries in about 20 seconds.They had little wheeled carts that they slid the dead ones onto and then wheeled another set of carts whit charged batteries on them and they just slid into racks in the side pods. shove them in place, latch them down drop the sidepod and go.Quote:
Originally Posted by butch deer
But I would not want to think about loading them onto a truck without a forklift.
They league had a monster generator on it's own trailer that everyone charged their batteries from. None of the tracks they went to came close to having enough juice top charge them.
But you felt compelled to chime in with a safety question? :confused: Well since you can't be persuaded with logic, I'll reply for the others who might be openminded on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by billtebbutt
Any incident which requires a response by emergency services will be dealt with according to the specifics of the situation. For example, if an ICE car spins and contacts a static object (tire wall, guardrail, etc.), the folks who respond will be aware of the details and act accordingly. The same will be true if an EV has the same type of incident. As a result, there won't be a change in "risk profile" since we already have emergency services folks respond in differing ways to different scenarios.
A non-SCCA example is pretty simple to envision......the fire department responds in one way to a chemical warehouse fire and quite a different way to a dumpster fire. That response is different in quantity as well as type of support.
Bill, please feel free to email me offline (dframe@scca.com) if you have any other questions.
Dayle
Dayle, I didn't ask a safety question. I asked if existing drivers had been given a chance to give their input into determining whether/how EVs are to be integrated into pre-existing classes in the club that they fund - it was even in the title of my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayle Frame
Having said that, I don't think a safety question/discussion from anybody on this forum is ever off limits (regardless of one's view about the EV/ICE debate).
You debated my query that integrating EVs into pre-existing classes "could possibly" change the risk profile by using a simplistic example. But of course, that's not the only type of on-track incident you've seen (you are a driver yourself). Heavy car-to-car incidents are not unheard of, and my statement about a possible change in risk profile applies equally in that scenario.
best
BT
I shall probably regret this post, but it has to be said.
Whenever SCCA proposes something new, anything new, reaction divides into "How do we make this happen?"; and, "How do we make this not happen?" Usually, with a plurality for the latter.
And no thread like this is complete without reference to the malign influence of Stan Clayton and his sinister cabal. ;)
It is all so predictable.
My subjective opinion is that electric cars have some safety advantages over internal combustion engine vehicles, such as less risk of fire, fewer moving parts, and a lower center of gravity, making them less prone to rollover accidents. If lithium-ion batteries catch fire, though, they are very hard to put out. But today, emergency responders receive special training on how to deal with accidents involving electric vehicles.
Wonder how many other tracks will follow suit. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...fa847befbd.jpg
I cannot imagine very many tracks would adopt such policies, if this is even true. What a short-sighted poor business decision.
My only objection to EVs in SCCA is that classes will need to be eliminated or combined to facilitate their participation in any significant quantities. Looking at car counts, it is obvious which classes those would be. That will not be good for us.
Given that the SCCA doesn't seem to be remotely willing to consider performance-balancing FC's with MZR's against the Zetec's, I cannot wait to see how they balance a high-power gas engine vehicle against a heavier, massive-low-end-torque electric vehicle! Talk about making your lap times in a different manner...
(yeah, I know, Zetec/MZR issue includes the FE2 house-car argument)
The tracks are banning EV's as they do not have the Fire Fighting equipment required to fight a fire in a EV. It is purely a safety issue. They could buy the equipment, but the cost would have to be passed on to all racers.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
Ed
Exactly 110% correct!!!!
Until the tracks have the equipment and training to handle EV fires, that is the only SAFE way to deal with them.
We do have a BEV sports racer based on an SRF chassis in the SF Region. Thunderhill has welcomed Tesla and others for testing and some track day operators do allow them. That said, yes there are risks that must be mitigated.
https://www.hagerty.com/media/motors...ce71f231de33bc
They aren't balancing anything, they've openly declared that they're making the electric cars into their own classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus7
This SCCA decision could be due to significant differences in power delivery and weight distribution between electric and gas vehicles, which would make it difficult to balance them fairly. As a result, EV drivers may need to compete in a different class and use different strategies to achieve competitive lap times.
post #4 above, from an scca official, says the opposite ....Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshuaJustice
Post #4: "We’re not killing off any classes with this proposal.….these EV classes will run with current (no pun intended) race groups."Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus7
I'm the officlal and I stand by what I said.....we are NOT killing off any classes due to the addition of EVs.
To the other point, we created Prototype Electric (PE) for folks who want to build an EV that mimics a P2 car. How is that "opposite"? EVs will have their own classes for a variety of reason. BoP being just one. As the previous poster noted, it really tough to balance the performance of two vastly different types of cars. It'll take time to get a handle on how these cars perform. This is new to everyone.....builders, drivers, workers, stewards....and rule makers.
As there is only so much time in the race day, they will be put in existing run groups. That said, maybe there's a day when EV classes are so populated that they'll need their own group.....but we are a loooong way from that point.
Dayle