Anybody got an update on the intrigue over Kephart's new wheels? Rumor has it that there will be a showdown over them at the Runoffs - seems that the CRB doesn't like them, even though they've been declared legal by the Stewards.
Kephart Wheel intrigue?
Anybody got an update on the intrigue over Kephart's new wheels? Rumor has it that there will be a showdown over them at the Runoffs - seems that the CRB doesn't like them, even though they've been declared legal by the Stewards.
Last edited by R. Pare; 10.07.08 at 5:40 PM.
Anyone have any pictures, I have only seen them once for a few seconds. They are like the F1 wheel cover deal right??
Are these the wheels you're talking about?
2003 VanDiemen FSCCA #29
Follow me on Twitter @KeithCarter74
How could a steward like a part and the CRB not like the same part. don't the stewards have to answer to the CRB?
The stewards have been known to have a decision overturned.
Roland Johnson
San Diego, Ca
I've only seen pictures, but they are a 2-piece wheel where a flush outer face is an integral structural component, not a cosmetic add-on.
The rules do not allow "wheel fans", "wheel covers" or "any device to fair in the wheel". Traditionally, the interpretation of these stated items has been that they are all referring to add-ons to the basic wheel.
In Kepharts design, the outer face is an integral component of the wheel and cannot be removed or cut away. As such, it is perfectly legal.
That now brings us into the arena whereby a couple of CRB members don't like the wheel, and seem to think that their opinion is somehow law, and should override the stewards opinion.
Nothing can be further from the truth. The GCR allows the Stewards and/or the Appeal Court to ask for the opinion of the CRB members (as well as any other sources they see fit), but does not state anywhere that they have to abide by the CRBs opinion.
This could get interesting!
Last edited by R. Pare; 10.07.08 at 5:40 PM.
Isn't it up to fellow competitors to protest, not the stewards? I am obviously wrong, I can see from the posts, but doesn't someone have to protest?
Does anyone know what the bottom of the car looks like? In the picture is looks like there is something there other than a sheet of aluminum, but that could be deceiving. Can't get much lower than that!
Short answer: No, they don't.Originally Posted by old dog
Long answer: Stewards answer to their Division's Executive Steward, who answers to the Chairman of the Stewards Program, who answers in turn to the Board. The stewards enforce the provisions of the GCR, subject to protest and appeal.
The CRB develops rules and proposes them to the Board, which approves them (or not). Everything ultimately answers to the Board.
I don't know anything about any issue around these wheels, and would not comment on such an issue.
In general, the stewards might interpret a rule (eg. "All cars shall be red.") in a particular fashion (eg. permitting scarlet cars), and the CRB might decide to propose a rule clarification specifying things in a more particular way (eg. "All cars shall be red and not scarlet.") . If and when the revised rule was blessed by the Board, the stewards would enforce that revised rule.
Last edited by John Nesbitt; 10.07.08 at 5:16 PM.
John Nesbitt
ex-Swift DB-1
My understanding is that someone did protest them at a race last month, and the wheels were deemed legal. The protester has supposedly appealed that decision, and it is supposed to be settled at the Runoffs.
I thought Kephart had already tried to get a ruling on this through the court of appeals? Did I make that up?
What does the CRB not like?
[quote=R. Pare;188040]I've only seen pictures, but they are a 2-piece wheel where a flush outer face is an integral structural component, not a cosmetic add-on.
In Kepharts design, the outer face is an integral component of the wheel and cannot be removed or cut away. As such, it is perfectly legal.
What are the 6 small holes in the outer "piece" of the wheel for?
So they write bad rules, then someone builds a part that falls entirely within those rules and they get pissy about it and want to punish them.
I guess that is easier than having a reasonable GCR.
Mirrors!
The wheels are cool but probably very expensive.
I want a set of those mirrors!
Garey Guzman
FF #4 (Former Cal Club member, current Atlanta Region member)
https://redroadracing.com/ (includes Zink and Citation Registry)
https://www.thekentlives.com/ (includes information on the FF Kent engine, chassis and history)
That scenario isn't unique to the SCCA. Give enough competitors enough time, resources and desire and you end up with "things" that were outside of anything the rules-writers envisioned. It happens all over the place. It is our job as competitors!!
The solution is you go through the process to close the loopholes for FUTURE races, not current ones.
Just my $.02
The camera is probably adding as much drag as the mirrors saved
sounds like the FIA.
Ken
I wouldn't call it a bad rule - it's pretty clear as to not wanting add-ons. When it was written, some guys were trying to flush-face their wheels with hubcaps, etc., that kept coming off and acting like missles.
Us old farts have understood it quite clearly for 30+ years that that is all it refers to, but it is only recently that anyone actually tried to exploit it to the fullest. I designed a set of wheels that have a solid center, but never put them into production when the F2000 series went to a spec wheel.
Downforce
The camera may be causing drag, but look at the angle of attack. It must also be generating downforce !!
Paul
bill, What were you thinking paint it red and it's legal no matter what,
6 holes
6 holes are threaded, they are were the 2 center pieces are bolted together from the rear
My understanding of the chain of events might be a bit off:
I've been told that Kephart recieved a ruling on the wheels through the "pay for a decision" route (GCR 8.1.4). If that is the case, the decision would be issued by the Court of Appeals (if I'm reading the rule correctly - it seems to read that way, but is not specifically stated as such).
If indeed it was issued by the CoA, then their decision is final, and cannot be appealed by anybody (GCR 8.4.5.E), including the CRB, or even the BoD.
The rules are a bit murky for this situation, but everything points to those 8.1.4 decisions as being final.
From another thread:
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...4&postcount=38
I wonder if this will be the end of it.
compliant with the rule as written is all anyone can ask or should expect!!
personal "taste" in wheels is hardly even approaching "objectively verifiable". is sexy or spiffy or red next??
it's my sense the weakness in the wheel cover rule as currently written isn't even close to the tip of the "AERO" iceberg............................. ever seen a downforce?? how about a "downforce meter"?? how about a qualified/certified "downforce meter operator"? how do you objectively measure "downforce" in impound??? and how do you tell the difference/measure objectvely the difference between "reduced lift" and "downforce" ???
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
If the Court of Appeals made a decision, it is final. Unless and until the CRB writes a revised rule, and the Board approves it.
Keep in mind that, per the GCR Foreword, all CoA decisions from the previous year are superseded by the new GCR each January. In practice, previous decisions are treated as precedent.
John Nesbitt
ex-Swift DB-1
Do you just make this stuff up out of thin air now, Richard?
For the record, the CRB has not been involved in Mr. Kephart's wheel drama beyond the input we are required under the rules to give to the First Court and to the Court of Appeals on questions of the GCR.
I don't know of anybody protesting the wheels.
Mr. Kephart did a "self protest" this summer and got a ruling.
There was a Stewart's RFA wrt the wheels Monday that was adjudicated and settled. The CRB was not involved beyond our Chair giving testimony as he is required to do under the CoA rules.
Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
So where can you buy a set of those wheels?
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
I believe they are youngbloods(sp?).
If there's 2 center pieces. The wheels must be atleast 4 piece wheels ?
I thought about fabbing flush sided wheels a couple of years ago by tig welding a thin, say .040, aluminum disc to the outer lip of the wheel to increase the rim strength & make them more aero efficient. However they would need 13 socket sized holes to access the 13 bolts that hold my 3 piece BBS's together in addition to the center hole for the centerlock nut. Never did proceed with the idea because I can't afford to waste the rim sections if they are disallowed!
Scott Woodruff
83 RT5 Ralt/Scooteria Suzuki Formula S
(former) F440/F5/FF/FC/FA
65 FFR Cobra Roadster 4.6 DOHC
No, Stan - I got that from 3 different sources close to the action, and quite franky, such an action on your part wouldn't surprise me at all.
That said, if indeed you behaved yourself this time, I apologise.
For the record for everyone else here, the CRB is required to give testimony only if asked by either the First Court or the CoA. Neither Court is required to ask for the CRBs opinion - the Courts can get information from any sources they see fit, and can totally ignore the CRB (and anyone else) if they choose.
That is correct as far as an issue going through the normal protest & appeal proceedure. However, while it isn't addressed directly in the GCR, I would doubt that is the case if you use the pay-for-your-ruling proceedure - I would expect that to be valid until the rule is changed - it certainly wouldn't be a good use of $250 if the ruling is valid only for the remaining calender year!
It holds for all CoA decisions.
However, stewards and SOM courts would show great deference to a paid-for ruling unless/until preempted by new GCR language.
John Nesbitt
ex-Swift DB-1
That been thought of by a lot of people over the years, though I've never seen any in action.
The problem with this sort of mod is structural - the welding process will anneal the rim in that area and therefore weaken it considerably - there is a very good chance that the stresses will break the weld or HAZ and allow the disk to part ways. Corner workers tend to frown upon ragged-edged disks hurtling along in their direction!
MARCH and Dymag tried this on some CART wheels back in '88 - they welded a cover to the outer face for use at the Indy 500. While they wheels passed the x-ray tests, they failed a structural test and were dissallowed. You might see a couple remaining samples on old show cars - they looked pretty trick.
I suspected that may be the case. However, could the welded assembly not be reheat treated to normalize the welding process & return them to a strong condition? I'm just guessing & know it would be beyond my financial means.
Scott Woodruff
83 RT5 Ralt/Scooteria Suzuki Formula S
(former) F440/F5/FF/FC/FA
65 FFR Cobra Roadster 4.6 DOHC
Rheattreating can be done, but the problem lies in re-straightening everything afterwards. Your spun wheels are spun in the annealed condition, and then re-spun after heattreating to get rid of the warping from the heattreating. If you weld a disk on to them, they would then be re-annealed (probably - not positive about that) and then heattreated once again. With the disk covering the face, you would now not be able to get the rim back over the spinning pattern.
Not sure as to how the double heattreating will affect the alloy (if can adversly affect steel alloys, but I've never inquired as to aluminiums). Riley & Scott tried a welded and heattreated aluminium frame for their first Grand Am cars, but even with the help of Alcoa, they never got it right - lots of warpage and weak welds.
flat wheels
Penske used them on their P2 cars at the Petite last week took them off for race BBS disavoed any knowledge of them
As an aside, Champ cars had flat wheels with the flat face cast into the entire wheel structure (at least on the Lolas I worked on) starting in '89 until they were banned in the early 90's. The didn't allow enough cooling on the road courses but the drivers liked them on the superspeedways (and they were less drag in the wind tunnel). They were disallowed due to the cost for teams having sets of road course & speedway wheels, thus allowing each team to maintain a smaller set of wheels (and reduce their investment in wheels).
Tim
------------------
'Stay Hungry'
JK 1964-1996 #25
What kind of FF is in the picture with the wheels?
Tim:
Don't know if you were there then, but Speedline tried the same thing in '86 - beautiful looking wheels, if rather heavy. They made a small mistake, though - they forgot about pipe organ effects.
The wheel had cast-in tubes running from the slightly-protruding outer face (beautifully attached air flow across that face) to the inner face. As the wheel rotates, the tube forward velocity would go from ground speed (zero mph) to a bit less than double the cars forward speed once every revolution. As it did, it would pump air first one direction, and then the other.
At the first testing at the Speedway, at about 190 mph we would suddenly start to hear what we thought was an tornado warning siren, and the driver would immediately back off the throttle - the pumping forces were so violent that the steering wheel became almost impossible to hold on to! The engineers were scratching their heads a bit at first, until someone finally realized what was happening.
We had about 50 car sets of those things at the shop - never did find another use for them!
The yellow car is Bill Kephart and Dan Cambell's creation called a vestal 09. The wheels are a Bill Joungblod creation and yes, they are expensive. If and when they become available they will be even more expensive. THey also take a special stub axle or center lock nut.
John
Yeah the wheels are cool and all....but what I wanna know is what is going on that we can't see!!!
Anyone have any juicy info on what is underneath the bodywork?? I heard that the arms and such are VD copies, correct or incorrect?
I noticed a brown discoloration in front of the rear tire on the body venting, anyone know what that is from. Looks like burned oil or something....is that the exhaust outlet??
Also, I noticed there are not air ducts for under hood cooling? Do FFs need the added airflow?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
