Please explain .... Euro Sidepod & Width Rule Change

[Purple Frog]

Steve,

I had some discussion about some safety concerns. But that opens up another can of worms. The 2010 Euro rules were written by a team of Ford Motor Company engineers, upon the review of the FIA, and I'm sure reviewed by a team of Ford lawyers. If you read those 2010 rules you will notice pages and pages of detailed safety stuff. Much more detailed than the GCR.

I realize there has been an on-going love/hate relationship between the SCCA and the FIA.

The Mygales had to be "spec-lined" into SCCA FF because their roll hoop structures are FIA compliant, and not SCCA GCR compliant.

The truth is we have no data in the US. Such as; How many T-bone impacts are there?, and how extensive are the injuries?

Other than my own in 2005, I don't remember any T-bone impacts being reported. Of course with declining entries the chances of any car-to-car impacts also drop. That said, is side impact protection a big deal, or a red herring? I don't know.

[helipilot04]

Steve,

I had some discussion about some safety concerns. But that opens up another can of worms. The 2010 Euro rules were written by a team of Ford Motor Company engineers, upon the review of the FIA, and I'm sure reviewed by a team of Ford lawyers. If you read those 2010 rules you will notice pages and pages of detailed safety stuff. Much more detailed than the GCR.

I realize there has been an on-going love/hate relationship between the SCCA and the FIA.

The Mygales had to be "spec-lined" into SCCA FF because their roll hoop structures are FIA compliant, and not SCCA GCR compliant.

The truth is we have no data in the US. Such as; How many T-bone impacts are there?, and how extensive are the injuries?

Other than my own in 2005, I don't remember any T-bone impacts being reported. Of course with declining entries the chances of any car-to-car impacts also drop. That said, is side impact protection a big deal, or a red herring? I don't know.

Mike, If the ""Mygales had to be "spec-lined" into SCCA FF because their roll hoop structures are FIA compliant"" then how can they be brought into the normal SCCA GCR fold by just adding narrow sidepods? Wouldnt they need to be compliant in all respects of the GCR to be labeled under such rules.. And since they were "spec-Lined" shouldnt they remain in that "line" unless they are completely compliant with the GCR.??

respectfully,
Bob Detrick

ps, no dog in the fight, just confused about the overall rules package and movement between the two..

[S Lathrop]

Mike, If the ""Mygales had to be "spec-lined" into SCCA FF because their roll hoop structures are FIA compliant"" then how can they be brought into the normal SCCA GCR fold by just adding narrow sidepods? Wouldnt they need to be compliant in all respects of the GCR to be labeled under such rules.. And since they were "spec-Lined" shouldnt they remain in that "line" unless they are completely compliant with the GCR.??

respectfully,
Bob Detrick.

VDs do not have "legal" SCCA roll bars. You can submit an alternative design with a engineers opinion that the design meets SCCA standards, if SCCA accepts you submission you are good to go.

[R. Pare]

Per the rules, as Steve stated, the Mygale, if converted to narrow sidepods, would also need to submit an engineering paper per the alternative hoop design approval procedure - nothing that I know of in the rulebook states that FIA-spec rollbars are automatically approved by the club.

I wonder if any of the converted cars have actually done that.

[EACIII]

Slightly off topic but has anyone made a FF in the last 20 years the meets the SCCA roll hoop rule regarding forward bracing? Or have then changed the rule since last time I read the GCR completely?

[R. Pare]

All are compliant.

[Steve Bamford]

Per the rules, as Steve stated, the Mygale, if converted to narrow sidepods, would also need to submit an engineering paper per the alternative hoop design approval procedure - nothing that I know of in the rulebook states that FIA-spec rollbars are automatically approved by the club.

I wonder if any of the converted cars have actually done that.

I believe we had to give engineer drawings many years ago as it was very difficult to get the car originally approved. We had a lot of back & forth info with Mygale in France. I hope that helps answer the question.

[R. Pare]

If that is correct, then all Mygals of that same design should be OK in that regard. However, cars of another manufacture will still need to go through the same hoops as you did.

[Jnovak]

Per the rules, as Steve stated, the Mygale, if converted to narrow sidepods, would also need to submit an engineering paper per the alternative hoop design approval procedure - nothing that I know of in the rulebook states that FIA-spec rollbars are automatically approved by the club.

I wonder if any of the converted cars have actually done that.

i would assume that this must have been done already or the new cars would not be racing. Once a new design is approved it does not have to be re approved for every car that is the same as previously approved.

[R. Pare]

Correct - once a design is approved, it is approved for all of that manufacturers cars of that design.

[John LaRue]

The FSRAC was presented with information derived from wind tunnel testing of both narrow and wide side pod configurations. The wide pods proved to generate more downforce than the narrow pods. While the wider pods did show increased drag over the narrow pods, the increase in drag was not of significant magnitude to overcome the improved downforce. Another factor that was given consideration in the decision making process was the improved cooling that is generated with the wide pods. The Honda FIT is mapped such that ignition timing is backed out when the intake and water temperatures reach specific levels; this results in a dramatic decrease in engine performance. A narrow pod car being unable to cool as efficiently is thus at a disadvantage. The 25# weight was added to the wide pod British cars until such time as the overall width rule could be made consistent over all cars in the class. Obviously, there are other small differences in the British spec cars, but those are not seen as items which impact performance from a competition perspective. When a formula that has been in place over a number of years is modified things like this can and should be expected to arise. Cars which are brought in as spec line cars and do not otherwise meet the established rule set or formula are subject to periodic review and adjustment based upon their respective performance. The FSRAC declined to recommend a change to the rule to allow wider pods due to the number of cars that would be impacted.

[Steve Bamford]

The FSRAC was presented with information derived from wind tunnel testing of both narrow and wide side pod configurations. The wide pods proved to generate more downforce than the narrow pods. While the wider pods did show increased drag over the narrow pods, the increase in drag was not of significant magnitude to overcome the improved downforce. Another factor that was given consideration in the decision making process was the improved cooling that is generated with the wide pods. The Honda FIT is mapped such that ignition timing is backed out when the intake and water temperatures reach specific levels; this results in a dramatic decrease in engine performance. A narrow pod car being unable to cool as efficiently is thus at a disadvantage. The 25# weight was added to the wide pod British cars until such time as the overall width rule could be made consistent over all cars in the class. Obviously, there are other small differences in the British spec cars, but those are not seen as items which impact performance from a competition perspective. When a formula that has been in place over a number of years is modified things like this can and should be expected to arise. Cars which are brought in as spec line cars and do not otherwise meet the established rule set or formula are subject to periodic review and adjustment based upon their respective performance. The FSRAC declined to recommend a change to the rule to allow wider pods due to the number of cars that would be impacted.

Good info John. Where did they get the narrow pod Mygale from to do the comparison? I don’t know of many out there who could have provided it & mine wasn’t used. Euro cars don’t run small side pods so couldn’t have been conducted in Europe. Wouldnt you need to be using indentical cars to prove the downforce difference wouldn’t you?

[Steve Bamford]

The FSRAC was presented with information derived from wind tunnel testing of both narrow and wide side pod configurations. The wide pods proved to generate more downforce than the narrow pods. While the wider pods did show increased drag over the narrow pods, the increase in drag was not of significant magnitude to overcome the improved downforce. Another factor that was given consideration in the decision making process was the improved cooling that is generated with the wide pods. The Honda FIT is mapped such that ignition timing is backed out when the intake and water temperatures reach specific levels; this results in a dramatic decrease in engine performance. A narrow pod car being unable to cool as efficiently is thus at a disadvantage. The 25# weight was added to the wide pod British cars until such time as the overall width rule could be made consistent over all cars in the class. Obviously, there are other small differences in the British spec cars, but those are not seen as items which impact performance from a competition perspective. When a formula that has been in place over a number of years is modified things like this can and should be expected to arise. Cars which are brought in as spec line cars and do not otherwise meet the established rule set or formula are subject to periodic review and adjustment based upon their respective performance. The FSRAC declined to recommend a change to the rule to allow wider pods due to the number of cars that would be impacted.

Also you are correct on the ignition timing when the cars hit a certain temp. My narrow pod car cooling was developed & ran cooler running in the pack then some of the larger pod cars. It took significant development at great expense to run cooler. I have looked at data comparing my car & wider pod cars in the past during the races showing mine running cooler. I know the FSRAC doesn’t have this info as they never requested it from myself. So with that said that can’t be used as part of the reason to add the weight penalty.

[Steve Bamford]

I know the people making the decisions for the rule changes are doing so with best interests of the class at hand & are hard working volunteer people. I’m not trying to throw anyone under the bus or cause issues. I am simply pointing out objections & providing first hand information to what is being provided. I am trying to give the information on the vehicles as I know them & have probably more laps in the Mygale then anyone else. My car was the first Mygale fitted the Honda engine so has been around as the first car brought over from France to run in this form. It took a long time to work out SCCA compliance issues, one being pods & other being roll hoop. It was not a simple process. I have also raced against these other wide pod cars for hundreds of races. I’m trying to help with info as it seems what was presented to make the rules upon may have been with not the all the info that is actually available.

I can also understand people complaining about the results of these cars but there is much more involved then race results that needs to be considered.

[John LaRue]

Steve - The FSRAC and CRB do not share or make public the information and data that is used in decision making for obvious reasons. If those parties wish to share the information publicly it would be their perogative. Happy New Year. John

[Steve Bamford]

Steve - The FSRAC and CRB do not share or make public the information and data that is used in decision making for obvious reasons. If those parties wish to share the information publicly it would be their perogative. Happy New Year. John

That’s understandable John, I am just raising realistic questions based on what has been shared. I don’t think enquiring to which cars were used for the test should be withheld to justify the decision. None of it adds up to 25 lb weight penalty or 7 plus seconds a race addition. I still stick to my points above & believe 100% ruling is not made with proper information. Not sure what else I can to help provide information publicly or privately & have also followed procedures by sending my letter in. If there is anything else I can do to resolve an incorrect rule decision please advise.

I wish you & everyone else a Happy New Year & much success for 2018.

[reidhazelton]

Hey Steve, Happy New Year to you as well and thank you for being part of the letter writing process with your submission.

Question; what is the max width of the pods on your car?

[Jnovak]

Good info John. Where did they get the narrow pod Mygale from to do the comparison? I don’t know of many out there who could have provided it & mine wasn’t used. Euro cars don’t run small side pods so couldn’t have been conducted in Europe. Wouldnt you need to be using indentical cars to prove the downforce difference wouldn’t you?

who said that the tested cars were Mygales?

[Steve Bamford]

who said that the tested cars were Mygales?

Good point Jay. I don’t know but perhaps someone can release the info so it is clear. I’m sure the letters were written due to Mygales winning so testing another car vs Mygale, while it could technically cover off wide pods cars, it is kind of not really the correct way to go about it unless someone had an agenda. Also how was it determined that the increased frontal area was more then made up with the increased downforce? Was it an assumption or proven?

[Steve Bamford]

Hey Steve, Happy New Year to you as well and thank you for being part of the letter writing process with your submission.

Question; what is the max width of the pods on your car?

Hi Reid,

Happy New Year as well. I’m not 100% sure as I don’t have the specs or car with me. When I got the car Beasley had done the original work & I believe splashed a mold off of it that he built newer ones for us. I can find out.

[Steve Bamford]

who said that the tested cars were Mygales?

Jay, were there any other makes of wide sidepod cars raced in SCCA Club other than Mygale?

[Jnovak]

Jay, were there any other makes of wide sidepod cars raced in SCCA Club other than Mygale?

i do not know the answer to that question but there have been lots of other wide side pod cars built and raced and for sure there was a comparitve wind tunnel test completed wide vs narrow pods.

[Steve Bamford]

i do not know the answer to that question but there have been lots of other wide side pod cars built and raced and for sure there was a comparitve wind tunnel test completed wide vs narrow pods.

I’m sure there has been testing just surprised the FSRAC and CRB had access to the documents when making the decision. Just listening to someone’s opinion who supposedly read these documents wouldn’t be a good way to come up with the penalty. I would hope that these documents used provided enough info to show that 25 lbs or at least 3 plus tenths a lap was the correct penalty to apply. There has to be some heavy math done in the calculations that the increased drag with larger frontal area is significantly over come in the low hp car to equate to what was agreed upon as a penalty.

I also believe not using information from the actual cars involved & taking data from another manufacture is not the correct way to decide upon the ruling that you know is being applied to Mygale cars, at least at this time.

I question the wind tunnel testing claims as part of the basis for the decision.

[Steve Bamford]

Can I get an explanation as to the resent Fast track release re my letter & this topic.

https://dk1xgl0d43mu1.cloudfront.net...pdf?1515428999

Just want to make sure I’m reading & understanding the wording correctly.

[Will Velkoff]

I haven't been paying much attention to this as it doesn't affect me, but I was curious to see the decision. With that said, I'm not sure what it all means after reading, and re-reading a few times.

How wide are the sidepods per the Euro spec?

[Jnovak]

Good point Jay. I don’t know but perhaps someone can release the info so it is clear. I’m sure the letters were written due to Mygales winning so testing another car vs Mygale, while it could technically cover off wide pods cars, it is kind of not really the correct way to go about it unless someone had an agenda. Also how was it determined that the increased frontal area was more then made up with the increased downforce? Was it an assumption or proven?

do you mean that the SCCA should test every new car or design in the tunnel? The club just lucked out that some wind tunnel testing was done overseas. Now you may not like the decision but you obviously would have developed your Mygales to gain an advantage in any case. Unless of course if the wide side pod mygales have a slight advantage.

[hdsporty1988]

Can I get an explanation as to the resent Fast track release re my letter & this topic.

https://dk1xgl0d43mu1.cloudfront.net...pdf?1515428999

Just want to make sure I’m reading & understanding the wording correctly.

I have re-read this several times and I'm not sure! I did notice after reviewing the GCR that the potential weight differential is only 15#s 1110 vs 1125.

[stonebridge20]

Looks to me that you have to 7/1/18 to take the table saw to your wide pods. After you narrow your wide pods, you can run at standard min weight. Until then you run at 1125lbs


I may be wrong since I've invested minimal thought and research into this mess.

[Bob Wright]

Read it twice, looked up 9.1.1.B.4 and B.20. It certainly looks like the 95cm max width will be mandatory for all FF cars as of 7/1/18.

[John LaRue]

I have re-read this several times and I'm not sure! I did notice after reviewing the GCR that the potential weight differential is only 15#s 1110 vs 1125.

There was a typo in the prelims, the weight should be 1135# which is 25# over the minimum for cars that are compliant with 9.1.1.B.4. It should be corrected for the final publication of Fastracks.

[hdsporty1988]

Read it twice, looked up 9.1.1.B.4 and B.20. It certainly looks like the 95cm max width will be mandatory for all FF cars as of 7/1/18.

John LaRue, is this correct?

[R. Pare]

Read it twice, looked up 9.1.1.B.4 and B.20. It certainly looks like the 95cm max width will be mandatory for all FF cars as of 7/1/18.

Amazing! Cars being run over here actually having to abide by our rules!

[R. Pare]

John LaRue, is this correct?

That is exactly what it says.

[Jnovak]

Amazing! Cars being run over here actually having to abide by our rules!

sadness and woe.

[A.Dobb]

Yay time to spend $$$ to convert /s

[A.Dobb]

Amazing! Cars being run over here actually having to abide by our rules!

...yeah but SCCA seems to be the only club that decided to have this specific rule regarding the width of the pods. All other places to my knowledge allow them on level ground.

I'm a victim of this. At the end of the day I don't really care and I will make my car conform to the rules. However it does either force people to pay more $$$ to convert or to go race elsewhere that doesn't have this specific rule (which seems like everywhere else?)...

[R. Pare]

That rule has been in effect since what, 1986? And now a few want to complain??? Really?

I'm not saying that the rule is either good or bad, but when you buy a car that does not conform to the rules that are in place, don't complain that you have to spend money to make it legal.

If there is a legit reason to change the width rule, start lobbying for the change.

[A.Dobb]

That rule has been in effect since what, 1986? And now a few want to complain??? Really?

I'm not saying that the rule is either good or bad, but when you buy a car that does not conform to the rules that are in place, don't complain that you have to spend money to make it legal.

If there is a legit reason to change the width rule, start lobbying for the change.

re lobbying for the change: I think that's what they were doing in the first place?

re rule being in effect since 1986: Sure, but It's a bit more complicated than that...Was the Honda engine allowed in 1986?

When I bought my car and up until last week I was allowed to run my car with the wide pods with a weight penalty (whatever - that's fine - understandable)

Now I have to spend the money to make it conform to a rule (that many are arguing is silly) just to run an SCCA event after July 1st.

Again - I'll conform to the rules...and I wasn't the one who started complaining nor was I the original poster of this thread. I'm only speaking from my side. Regardless I will be the first guinea pig to purchase some narrow pods for my Van Diemen and report back if its as simple as buying and attaching narrow pod tops and bottoms and go from there! Hopefully I don't need to massage them and hopefully I can keep the same rads.

[Steve Bamford]

That rule has been in effect since what, 1986? And now a few want to complain??? Really?

I'm not saying that the rule is either good or bad, but when you buy a car that does not conform to the rules that are in place, don't complain that you have to spend money to make it legal.

If there is a legit reason to change the width rule, start lobbying for the change.

Sorry guys but the cars were allowed to run for many years without a weight penalty till last year. So to say the rule has been in place since 1986 is incorrect. People who have bought these cars since they were allowed to run with wide pods have to pay the price & all because some old fart who doesn’t have the same prep as the Pro teams & talent of the young kids complained. How is CRB going to BOP when they get complaints that the Pro teams who convert their cars & run kids who get picked up by Red Bull kick their butts?

I get the rule but no one is really admitting why the complaint/letter was writen in the first place & that you are really costing people money with your decision that WILL NOT change the race results. Stop drinking the Koolaid if you believe otherwise.

[Jnovak]

...yeah but SCCA seems to be the only club that decided to have this specific rule regarding the width of the pods. All other places to my knowledge allow them on level ground.

I'm a victim of this. At the end of the day I don't really care and I will make my car conform to the rules. However it does either force people to pay more $$$ to convert or to go race elsewhere that doesn't have this specific rule (which seems like everywhere else?)...

that was the original rule all over the world for close to 50 years. I know that, based on data, that we saw that the wiider side pods would have required every existing car to chage their side pods if they wanted to be competitive.

The wide side pod cars will still be competitive imo. Dont change your pods unless you want to.