Rabbit07
New member
Andy,
I agree with you on many points. That being said I have talked to many who don't agree with the status of IT. I use the washer bottle comment tounge and cheek as an example.
Some things got missed
- Thread starter Rabbit07
- Start date
Andy,
I agree with you on many points. That being said I have talked to many who don't agree with the status of IT. I use the washer bottle comment tounge and cheek as an example.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
So what do you mean by 'status of IT'? If you mean, "I know some guys who would build IT cars if they allowed the removal of the washer bottle...", I call BS.
Now on motor mounts, I voted for those and think it makes sense logically to allow them given the mods currently allowed and teh nature of what we are doing.
Rabbit07
New member
Come on, I told you that the washer bottle was
. I wasn't being serious about the washer bottle. Then engine mounts however........Dave Gomberg
New member
This board needs an "egg-on-face" or at least a "really red-faced" smiley because, through a miscommunication, I got this wrong. The current 8.50 inch chord will remain. My apologies for misleading anyone here. (This is why we have a policy of not leaking things until the Fastrack appears and why we're sorry when we bust that policy.)
Dave
Ugh.
Dave, what is the purpose of this rule change from 2010 for STU? Will there be further opportunity for feedback from members in regard to these rules changes in STU from 2010 to 2011?
It's one thing to make the new smaller wing size a separate rule for STL, a class that never existed before January 2011; it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish to change the rule for STU without further membership and competitor feedback (and, IMO, reasonable supporting justification). You are making parts illegal in 2011 that are perfectly legal today; I sincerely hope that is not a change you are taking lightly.
And in regard to STL, is there a basis for that chosen wing size? Is the STAC/CRB aware of reasonable availability of such a size, or is it a "POOMA"?
On edit: And in regard to not "leaking" things in advance of publication, I'd certainly much prefer that these items get out in the open for reasonable discussion prior to final publication, for then they can be reasonably vetted before being "cast in stone". As I've written many, many times before, it is just NOT POSSIBLE for a handful of guys on a concall to figure out all the possibilities of what the masses will think of or feel. Better to take the heat before it's irreversible than to take it after.
GA, very very not pleased with this newest revelation...
Last edited:
dickita15
New member
In fairness to the CRB the wing change was put out for member input in the August fastrack although I admit it was part of a very large rewrite. There was certainly plenty of time for member input.
dickita15
New member
Jake, I think it is unreasonable to assume ST will not have competition adjustments. Every class in SCCA with more than one motor except IT has competition adjustments. Some are politically seen by some as politically distasteful as in prod and some are a little more objective (math based) as in GT. Even SM has them.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Dick, I'm thinking that, with a new class, it's a great time to lay the ground work and the parameters. I'd love to hear more about the bigger picture and the plans for such adjustments.
dickita15
New member
Understood and I certainly do not have those answers. My only point is the IT mindset about completion adjustments (bleah) is an oddity in the club. It is great that Chris is being vocal on this forum, maybe he and others on the STAC can provide some insight here at to their vision. Just make sure if they do we all play nice.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
It's also arguably one of the most successful categories because of that. Just because it's done in other classes doesn't mean you have to use it as a foundation for a fresh new idea. I, like many, submit that if you do use traditional comp adjustments, you will have another undersubscibed failure, ESPECIALLY when you start with a formula-based classing system. Why would I ever build a car for the class if I thought 4 guys in a room with results and video from the Runoffs could adjust my weight based on my success or failures? Create a sound foundation, let it sink or swim on it's merits.
SM works simply because there are only 3 chassis and it's easy to see and understand what changes what.
Rabbit07
New member
Well, the short answers is that someone somehow screwed up with the original STU wing size. The STO, ie GT size was used. The STAC became aware of this earlier in the year and used some of the WC cars running in STU to verify the WC touring car wing size. The change was made to insure that the wings were consistant with the Touring cars.
Greg, you are correct on the fact that we can not cover all bases and this is why I always like to bounce ideas off of people just like yourself. We like all the feedback we have gotten.
Matt93SE
New member
The STO and STU wing size were never the same.
I'd love to see where these WC guys are getting wings.
Any chance the variable chord length APR GTC-200 "48" SCCA-spec" wing will be allowed? it's 8.75" in the center and tapers down to 6.75" on the ends, for an average of less than 8.5"
http://www.aprperformance.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36
Rabbit07
New member
Matt93SE
New member
Sure! For just a couple thousand dollars. It's okay, it's not THEIR money the SCCA is spending........
That's not really true, Chris. As of the 2009 PRR there are five "approved" wings in Touring Car, one of which is no longer available (the HPM spec wing from 2005), one that is model specific (the Mugen RSX rear wing), and two more that are built by the teams just for their cars. I don't know the third one, but I'm trying to find it.
Point is, nowhere in the 2009 PRR is there an open "wings must be this size" specification.
As for the 2010 PRR, I'm still scouring through it and the VTS sheets to find where wings are called out for the GTS class. Can't find it. The GT spec are in the PRR (2.12.14.2), and they're also VTS-specific. The call out for approvals for wings in GT is 72" length and 12" chord.
Yeah, the custom-made Dauntless wings are $2500-3000; the easily-available off-the-shelf APR wing that has a max chord of 8.75" - one quarter of an inch more than the current-current STL spec - is $625, including brackets.
Let's not dig our heels in there and be stupid about this...there's a lot of "things getting missed" here that should be open to consideration.
GA
Z3_GoCar
New member
Like I said in my other thread, if I wanted to throw a few $k at a rear wing I'd go down the road to Scaled Composites. I'm sure they have a super-critical, low drag-high down force profile airfoil that would do the job.
Ok, so I'm perusing the PRR and WC regs from 2009 and 2010. Best I can tell, for 2010 there were basically FOUR prep levels in THREE classes:
- GT, consisting of the big bore cars, lots of mods including wings;
- GTS and TC, two different performance potential classes of cars with limited prep and no wings;
- 2009 PRR-spec WC Touring cars, permitted to run in GTS, allowed to run wings to the 2009 PRR, which consisted only of the five wings I described above.
Ergo...unless I'm reading the rules incorrectly here...there is no World Challenge Touring Car wing size listed anywhere.
What am I missing here...?
GA
Verbiage from "2010 World Challenge Technical Bulletin 1", January 2010:
- GT, consisting of the big bore cars, lots of mods including wings;
- GTS and TC, two different performance potential classes of cars with limited prep and no wings;
- 2009 PRR-spec WC Touring cars, permitted to run in GTS, allowed to run wings to the 2009 PRR, which consisted only of the five wings I described above.
Ergo...unless I'm reading the rules incorrectly here...there is no World Challenge Touring Car wing size listed anywhere.
What am I missing here...?
GA
Verbiage from "2010 World Challenge Technical Bulletin 1", January 2010:
World Challenge has been restructured into three classes: Grand Touring (GT), Grand Touring Sport (GTS), and Touring Car (TC). As a result the Authorized Modifications Article has been rewritten, with fewer modifications permitted than in 2009. Many permitted modifications have been moved into the GT Specific Technical Regulations section, to allow vehicles competing in GT the same modifications as permitted in 2009.
Currently the GTS and TC Specific Technical Regulations are relatively short, as the GTS and TC class share essentially the same regulations.
Vehicles built to the 2009 and older TC regulations will be permitted to run in GTS. The additional modifications these vehicles were allowed will be added to their VTS sheets. These vehicles may also be homologated into the current TC class, with fewer modifications permitted.
Verbiage from the 2009 PRR specs, in regard to Touring Car wings:Currently the GTS and TC Specific Technical Regulations are relatively short, as the GTS and TC class share essentially the same regulations.
Vehicles built to the 2009 and older TC regulations will be permitted to run in GTS. The additional modifications these vehicles were allowed will be added to their VTS sheets. These vehicles may also be homologated into the current TC class, with fewer modifications permitted.
2.12.1.1.2: TC Rear Wing: The wings on the approved TC list are the only rear wings permitted for use in the TC class. The teams will use the wings and endplates as provided.
2.12.1.1.3: Approved Rear Wing List for the Touring Car class
2.12.1.1.3: Approved Rear Wing List for the Touring Car class
Company Name: Crawford Composite
Phone Number: 704.483.4175
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: CC612
Drawing Number: CC01
Company Name: HPM
Phone Number: 402.731.7301
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: HPM-9000-AU
Drawing Number: HP01
Company Name: Mugen/King Motorsports
Phone Number: 262.593.2438
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: 84112-XK5-K0S0
Drawing Number: MK01
Company Name: RealTime Racing
Phone Number: 262.268.2000
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: RTR0411H / RTR0411S
Drawing Number: RT01 / RT02
Company Name: Wheels America Racing / Murillo Racing
Phone Number: 707.280.6783
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: WAR1020
Drawing Number: WA01
Phone Number: 704.483.4175
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: CC612
Drawing Number: CC01
Company Name: HPM
Phone Number: 402.731.7301
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: HPM-9000-AU
Drawing Number: HP01
Company Name: Mugen/King Motorsports
Phone Number: 262.593.2438
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: 84112-XK5-K0S0
Drawing Number: MK01
Company Name: RealTime Racing
Phone Number: 262.268.2000
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: RTR0411H / RTR0411S
Drawing Number: RT01 / RT02
Company Name: Wheels America Racing / Murillo Racing
Phone Number: 707.280.6783
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: WAR1020
Drawing Number: WA01
Matt93SE
New member
In fairness to the competitor, this comment was brought up and submitted to the CRB (by me) on 8-10. It was 'tabled' by the STAC on 8-25, then reviewed by STAC and referred back to the CRB on 9-10. It was finally reviewed by the CRB on 11-3.
So the comments were made months ago. the rules were 'reviewed' and set in stone before the letter was completely processed.
Last edited:
Z3_GoCar
New member
You might want to consider how other organizations handle rear wings. This is from BMW club's prepared class:
Lots of options there.
3. Spoilers and wings are free providing they do not exceed maximum
body width, are no higher than the roofline and do not extend more
than two inches past the farthest part of the rear bumper as viewed
from above the car.
a. Vehicles with a roofline that extends to the rear for the full
extent of the body may have these devices extend no more
than three inches above the roofline.body width, are no higher than the roofline and do not extend more
than two inches past the farthest part of the rear bumper as viewed
from above the car.
a. Vehicles with a roofline that extends to the rear for the full
extent of the body may have these devices extend no more
Lots of options there.