Understanding the new splitter rule(s)

Chris -

As a thought experiment, maybe the answer is to envelope the rear corner of the bumper inside the flare? Since it's legal to attach a flare, and nothing says you have to actually SEE all of the bumper, this might be the answer.

I've been staring at my Mk1 Scirocco and taping bits of posterboard to it, and any reasonably wide and reasonably angled flare at the bumper level - forced to stay forward of the stock wheel opening per the rule - starts to overlap the rear corners of the bumper.

Structurally I don't like it as the bumper seems likely to be dislocated and thus pull off the flare, but I don't see why it's illegal.

Al Seim
HP VW Scirocco 1.6
 
Reminder- the production rules tell you what you are allowed to do. They do not tell you what you are not permitted to do.
 
Is there a reason not to allow one piece bumper splitter arrangements on older cars with separate bumpers as long as they look like the original bumper arrangement?
 
Thanks Jim, what are you saying?? The wheel openings may be flared . IMHO if the bumper is near the wheel opening that may also be flared, or buried in the flare.
AS a tech person ,please be very clear. not insinuate anything. Just the facts please.
Thanks,MM

letter sent , #18823 updating air control rules.
1)remove the shadow requirement along the side side of the car , replace with max body width rule of 2 in over the wheel rim width.
2) Allow the flares to be 2 in over wheel width with only one horizontal panel,(No canards) .
3) remove the 4 in requirement , so that the old cars may smooth the nose like the Miata/Honda, Yaris.
4) retain the nose shadow requirement , +-.5 in
 
Al - that is the track that I am on.

I do think that we should be allowed to modify bumpers to fit the flared fenders/wheel openings.
 
The only reason for having additional bumper width in a flare would be to gain an aerodynamic advantage over the current rule. I get why you would want this and respect your right to ask. However it is a lot easier and more fair to ask those building new cars and bodywork to work within the existing rule, than it is to force all the current and past racers that have already developed legal bodywork and moulds, to either race at a disadvantage, or build new stuff.
 
Curtis,
My letter has not made any current cars illegal or outdated.
Simply, 1) added a max width rule to body work.
There is no max width @ this point. You can make your flares as wide as you want including using canards for flares. This changes that oversight.
The wording reduces the legal amount of canards used for flares to one.
2) Simplify the air dam to fender flare blend area by removing the shadow rule for the air dam in the fender area. Currenlty the rule ask? Where does the air dam start and where does the flare start? The wording removes this small useless tech area.
3) Maintains the shadow rule for the nose area. I asked for a +-.5 in because the stock bumper cover needs some fastners to attach a bumper cover that the current rule has no provisions for.
4) Provision for the 5mph (and all) bumper cars to remove the bumper and smooth the nose more like the modern cars. Removing the 4 in limit . " Nothing may cover the grill trim or the headlights. This wording simply allows more of the the cars to mimic the smooth front ends of the Miata,Honda. Yaris.
Nothing much would change other than tech would be easier and fast. Plumb the nose, measure the width vs the wheel rims and done.
Nothing subjective .

IMHO there should not be 9 pages of discussion regarding airdams unless we're talking wind tunnel results. :) Hope that clears it up for you.

If you look at results, most of the time the fastest cars in class have the smallest air inlet areas .
Nice pic p10. The Beautiful TR6 and the Honda both cover the tires about the same . The little panel( Ruck panel :)) above the TR air dam under the grill is currently illegal. Removing the 4 in rule allows it.
Later, MM
 
OK, Mike.

I will not post anything else that the GCR clearly says.

My bad.

As with others in the past, I will cease and desist.
 
Curtis":14bf5oqm said:
The only reason for having additional bumper width in a flare would be to gain an aerodynamic advantage over the current rule. I get why you would want this and respect your right to ask. However it is a lot easier and more fair to ask those building new cars and bodywork to work within the existing rule, than it is to force all the current and past racers that have already developed legal bodywork and moulds, to either race at a disadvantage, or build new stuff.
Click to expand...

Actually the only reason is to extend the existing aerodynamic advantage that some cars, like the Miata, are already given. The current rule creates haves and have nots based on an arbitrary styling decision made by the OEM. The Prod rule set typically does a better job of ensuring that allowances in the PCS do not create vehicle specific advantages, and keeping vehicle specific issues on the spec line.
 
FP Racer":2r55cj98 said:
OK, Mike.

I will not post anything else that the GCR clearly says.

My bad.

As with others in the past, I will cease and desist.
Click to expand...

Jim - the question is a fair one.
With your tech hat on, what would you say is OK or not?
The point of our rules and tech is to help people make sure they are legal, not to "catch" people.
 
"Nothing says that you cant bury the bumper into the flare."

That is the statement that I addressed.

As I said and will say again. The CGR states what you can do, not what you can not do. If you are not happy with the rules you are writing, rewrite them. If they are not clear to you, rewrite them. Please don't ask me to interpret them on a forum. That's not going to happen.

Got to go now, the rain has stopped at Sebring and cars are going on track.
 
Jim -

Please don't cease and desist, I and others value your opinions greatly. (As, I suspect, does Mike. I think he was just having trouble deciding if your GCR paraphrase was meant to support some particular side of the discussion)

I think I've got a pretty good grasp of the the concepts of permissions / forbids / not mentioned in the GCR/PCS works, but it's complex at times to work out how they all interplay in some of the gray areas.

Al Seim
 
Here is my letter and a little more. ;

It is clear that the Prod class needs a simple updated flare/airdam rule.
The current rule stipulates that the air dam not exceed the car body shadow. That can be executed across the front of the car, but as the
air dam/ flares go around the sides of the car it all gets very confused. The shadow requirement should be removed around the sides.

"The fenders/ wheel opening may be flared" is fine also but the body has no maximum width . The flares @ this point by definition could be large canards run up over the tires. The allowed air dam may fit under said canard. Taken to extreme, the air dam may consist of small canards, all inside of the body shadow.

Most of the modern cars have a clean , seamless front end. The air dam simply extends the lines to the ground and the flares cover the tires. This design can be a one piece nose, with the only holes for the grille and brake ducts.
Many of the Prod cars came from the 5mph Bumper era. Removing these bumpers results in many ugly holes and brackets exposed. The VW has a line of 2x5 in holes the entire width of the bumper, below the grill. Covering these holes may not be legal under the current rule. I use the intermediate device to fit a panel that my air dam is attached to. It is apparently subjective if I am allowed to fit the panel and then cut holes in the panel . Waste of techs time, and a point of useless contention.
Updating the rule so that the big bumper cars can fill the holes more like the modern cars would be useful to clean up the noses on all of the cars.

The 4in above the hubs, stipulation makes the design of the air dam conflict with the fender flares, and often the grill opening. IE the VW where the grill is above the 4in and the holes exist. Without the 4 in rule these cars can smooth the nose much better. Approaching the Miata and Honda in seams and openings.

IMHO, A modern air dam rule should allow the old cars to more mimic the new cars listed in the class .
" The wheel openings can be flared. The max width of any added bodywork must be less than 2.0 in outside of the widest part of the wheel rim.
The wheel opening flares may contain one horizontal +-60* ,surface per flare. NO added bodywork may change the profile/silhouette, of the stock body,including wheel openings .

Air control ,dams,splitters/under trays, may be fitted. Any added air control must fall inside of the stock body shadow across the nose of the car, +-.5 in , and stop at the forward most edge of the wheel opening. Splitters/ under trays, may not be wider than the wheel rims. The air control may be integrated into the wheel opening flares, and adhere to the horizontal and width clauses.
Air control may not cover the stock grill opening or trim. The dam must have a hole that equals the stock grill opening in sq in and placement relative to the hood.
Air control may not cover the stock headlights or bezels, but may cover any turn/signal lights."

Pretty simple . And covers what is currently in use MOL and removes the tech shed BS. Straight edge the nose.Measure the width , done.
The places that may see changes would be a small splitter down the sides and one horizontal canard/ dive plane/surface, incorporated into the flare.

The issue I see is that the modern cars have a seamless front end, the air dam just continues the smooth lines to the ground, where as the old cars with separate bumpers have a lot more crap for the air to interact with.
A reasonable rule should allow the older cars to more closely resemble the new cars. Getting rid of the 4 in part of the rule would indeed allow the air dam to be very near the grille openings on the old cars. much like the Honda CRX,the Yaris, Mini.
The next part of the rule has to deal with the "shadow" along the sides of the car. IMHO the best way would be to mandate a max body width rule in correlation with the track rule , and remove the "shadow" stipulation regarding the sides of the car. The shadow is fine across the nose and keeps all of the current cars/designs happy.

The tech guys looked at my car@ Homestead for quite a while,. but walked away when asked for their thoughts concerning any legality issues. Very disappointing for me as a customer for sure, and I would be re.ally pissed if it was tossed without taking the time to discuss it before hand. when the opportunity existed.
MM
 
Mike I like that you're trying to simplify clarify and equalize.

However, this part isn't going to work:

The max width of any added bodywork must be less than 2.0 in outside of the widest part of the wheel rim.
Click to expand...

Some people have rain wheels with different offset, etc.

Just base the measurement off the track spec, not the wheels.
 
Mike,

Clarification is clearly needed, however............

Holes left by bumper removal can be covered now

The 4" rule does not prevent you in any way from working around a grille

Flares are body work so splitter or spoiler can operate in their shadow now

Flares cannot be large Cannards covering the tires because they have to maintain the stock appearance in profile already

Splitter run under super wide flares is not going to be done because it will slow you down (more frontal area and splitter if held in shadow is not going to make little, if any, downforce, it is only going to negate lift)

Lastly and this is just my opinion but VWs should look like VWs, not difficult to identify smooth nosed dirt modifieds. All that plastic stuff is so that the cars can run into each other and be easily repaired. Not something we need in production.
 
Curtis":qe86qkl8 said:
Mike,

Lastly and this is just my opinion but VWs should look like VWs, not difficult to identify smooth nosed dirt modifieds. All that plastic stuff is so that the cars can run into each other and be easily repaired. Not something we need in production.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking! I think Mike wants his VW's to look like a Miata.
I want my VW to look like a VW.
 
8.1.4. Compliance Review
A member may request a determination on the compliance of their vehicle or its components by submitting a Compliance Request Form to the Club Racing Department at which time a letter will be entered into the CRB letter system. The Compliance Request Form is available through the Club Racing Department.

A. The staff will review the request and must consult with the CRB and other appropriate experts.
B. Club Racing will schedule in-person inspection of the vehicle or components by a class expert. The expert will submit a written opinion back to Club Racing and the CRB.
C. Club Racing and the CRB will review the expert’s opinion. If required, the CRB may initiate a clarification of the applicable rule(s). Club Racing will then submit a written ruling to the applicant.
D. A fee will be determined and paid in advance of the inspection. A portion of the fee may be refunded at the discretion of SCCA.
E. Verification of compliance is based on the GCR as of the date of the written response to the member. The GCR changes annually, and there is no guarantee of compliance beyond the current rules season.

-----------------
 
Mike, I am sure that you would like some feedback on why the tech guys are looking at your car and not sharing their concerns with you. Why don't you post some pics of it on this forum and maybe get some comments from some of the knowledgeable folks that visit here. There are many situations at the race track that sometimes limit what the inspectors feel are appropriate comments or suggestions that should be made without research time available. I know with my own experience of working on a compliance team at events, I have been surprised by competitor innovations which need a little study before an intelligent, constructive comment should be made by an official. As a competitor it annoys me to be put on the defensive by someone's subjective unsubstantiated claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top