Forward facing gaps and openings

[R. Pare]

I'll ask the question once again:

As per Fastrack Feb, 2011:

CLUB RACING TECHNICAL BULLETIN
DATE: January 20, 2012
NUMBER: TB 12-02
FROM: Club Racing Board
TO: Competitors, Stewards, and Scrutineers
SUBJECT: Errors and Omissions, Competition Adjustments, Clarifications, and Classifications
All changes are effective 2/1/12 unless otherwise noted.

Formula
FB
1. #6258 (Club Racing Board) Bodywork rule omission
Add a new section, 9.1.1.H.3.i, as follows:
“There shall be no forward facing gaps or openings in the bodywork with the exception of those necessary for engine cooling, engine air inlet, shock, or brake cooling. All bodywork shall be firmly attached to the chassis.”

And the Glossary:

Body – All parts of the car licked by the air stream and situated above the
belly / floor with exception of the roll bar or cage. For Formula and Sports
Racing cars, further exceptions are those units definitely associated with
the function of the engine or transmission.
Body Panel – A replaceable section of the body.
Bodywork – See Body.

According to this definition, the wings and suspension are classified as "Bodywork", within which there naturally are "forward facing gaps or openings' in multiple places.

Basically, every FB out there is now illegal.

This same problem exists for other classes as well because of this definition.

This asinine Glossary definition has been talked about multiple times by multiple people for over 6 years now, and has not been fixed.

IS SOMEONE CURRENTLY ON THE FSRAC, CRB, OR BOD GOING TO GET OFF OF THEIR ASS AND GET THIS FIXED?

[Northwind]

I'll second that request.

[Dennis McCarthy]

Must be snowing in Indy....

[R. Pare]

Wish it was! Need to get some turns in, even if the closest ski area is not much more than a pimple!

This issue with that particular definition in the Glossary has gone on waaaaaay too long.

[Christopher Crowe]

And dependent on how the new rule is enforced... well, right -- every FB out there would be illegal.

I wonder what the intent of this little rules-amendment really was. Has anyone heard anything -- or have a theory?

Tough when you're trying to build a legal car!

[R. Pare]

The new inclusion in FB is the same rule that is in FF/FC. The difference is that in FF/FC, there is a description as to what constitutes "bodywork" that overrides the Glossary definition.

Basically, the rule originally designed to eliminate things like big scoops that turned 90 degrees upward in attempts to create downforce, or to not duct air into the cockpit to fill that low pressure area. For more modern designs, it is meant to eliminate things like bargeboards. the original rule was also intended to go hand in hand with another rule that is now missing: (from the 2006 GCR) :

It is not permitted to duct air through any part of the bodywork for the purpose of providing aerodynamic downforce on the car. All ducted air for heat exchangers (water/oil) shall pass through those heat exchangers.

I guess that one could argue that the first rule covers most of the concerns that the second rule addresses, but probably not visa-versa.

Really, to fix most of the issue that concerns us, the Glossary definition needs to be fixed - whatever design concerns there are about bargeboards, ground effects, etc, should be addressed in the relevant class rules.

[R. Pare]

Looks like a BOD member is taking the impetus on getting somethings done. We'll know shortly, I suspect.