Wicker Bills Allowed as Recommended Rule Change?

[Keith Carter]

Does anyone have any information on why the rule change is recommended? If it's a spec class and everyone is supposed to deal with the same hand of cards everyone else has, then why is this change needed? I see no reason to create more "options" in a spec class.

Wicker bill (Gurney flaps) are permitted as an option for installation on the trailing edge
upper surface of the wing element. They must be attached in a secure fashion,
without modification to the wing element except for mounting hardware. Total
height is .250” on one or both elements. The Gurney flap only, may extend beyond
the parameters of the end plate. Maximum number of mounting locations is 5 and
maximum hardware size is #8 (.156). Gurney flaps, where attached, shall be 90
degrees and parallel to the upper surface of the wing element and no taper or “saw
toothed” Gurneys are permitted

[Fred Michael]

They were allowed in USF2000 last year and I guess somebody thought it was a good thing for Club Racing.
I agree with you that there is absolutely no good reason for this rule.

[Keith Carter]

If that was the origin of the proposed change I see even less of a reason for it now that FE's are no longer part of the pro series.

[iamuwere]

It had been a request from many people pre and post pro (SCCA and USF2000) series to try to increase wing function. The front wing center does little and a small gurney was cheaper than a full new front wing. Also, some people felt they needed more rear wing (but I don't know why...).

Simple and cheap as a tool to tune with without forcing people to change whole wings and not something required for everyone. Quick way to tune the wing on pit lane.

[Keith Carter]

Thanks for the explanation, but I still fail to see the relevance in a spec club class. This is especially true if the wicker bills aren't part of the spec provided by the csr.

[steve everard]

I know that enterprise was looking at increasing the cars performance last year to differentiate FE from other close lapping classes, maybe this is how ?

[Keith Carter]

I would imagine more downforce wouldn't be my primary target for improving performance in these cars. Considering the lower profile aero package of the FCs, adding more drag/downforce doesn't help us there and FEs are already faster than FMs in the corner. Opening up the "spec" even more does nothing more than push people who are drawn to the idea of equal cars away. The FE numbers at the club level are already on life support. Hopefully the pullback from the pro racing helps that this season, but at this stage of the game I would recommend keeping the cars as equal as possible and the configuration options as few as possible. If the gurney flaps are going to be introduced to help the balance of the car or put the aero in the sweet spot so that the adjustments already on the car do something, mandate that all cars have them by making it part of the spec.

[Marshall Mauney]

If the gurney flaps are going to be introduced to help the balance of the car or put the aero in the sweet spot so that the adjustments already on the car do something, mandate that all cars have them by making it part of the spec.

I think I agree - but I would be against mandating them on the rear.

I don't see a need for more rear downforce at all. Does anyone use more than the flattest half-dozen settings on the upper element today? Seems to me that only the front would benefit, and even that might be a close call vs. drag.

[iamuwere]

That is why they are optional.

A gurney is Much faster than moving the front main plane angle.

[Tifosi]

It's a dumb rule.