Plastic quarter window

[prodogdriver]

as a side note to fellow super touring drivers I found these pre-made side windows

http://www.flex-a-lite.com/auto/html...te-molded.html

[Andy Bettencourt]

I've been contemplating just this very thing on the Mustang. I have some tiny rear quarters that would accommodate a NACA duct perfectly to feed my DR COOL.

"This ducting shall be located in the
driver and/or passenger window area"

My car carried passengers, and, the rear window is located in the passenger area.

Now, I know what they meant with the rule, but I think I could pass muster with a NACA duct in the rear quarter.

And as has been correctly stated, the 100 sq/in rule was put in place to limit the aero-engineers so other than the weight savings of said size glass, it shouldn't be an issue.

[DavidM]

I think you could put your NACA duct in the quarter window *area* if you so choose. It would be pretty ineffective with the quarter glass blocking it. I don't think the rule allows you to remove the quarter glass. The door windows are down/removed based on a different rule.

David

[Ron Earp]

I think you could put your NACA duct in the quarter window *area* if you so choose.
David

Okay, but, if I choose, why couldn't I use the 100 sq inch rule? If you agree I could put the NACA duct in the quarter window THEN it could be 100 sq inches and that might be larger than the window. Then the window would be gone, like this:

http://www.streetbeatcustoms.com/Age...-30207/639416/

[StephenB]

I think you could put your NACA duct in the quarter window *area* if you so choose. It would be pretty ineffective with the quarter glass blocking it. I don't think the rule allows you to remove the quarter glass. The door windows are down/removed based on a different rule.

David

Okay, but, if I choose, why couldn't I use the 100 sq inch rule? If you agree I could put the NACA duct in the quarter window THEN it could be 100 sq inches and that might be larger than the window. Then the window would be gone, like this:

http://www.streetbeatcustoms.com/Age...-30207/639416/

Your missing part of his quote in your post...

I agree with David that you can put it where ever you choose but you cannot remove something that isn't allowed to be removed. So, Ron if you put your window back in then your duct is perfectly legal. (It looks like from that picture that the window was removed which I do not see an allowance for in the IT ruleset.)

Stephen

[Ron Earp]

Your missing part of his quote in your post...

I agree with David that you can put it where ever you choose but you cannot remove something that isn't allowed to be removed. So, Ron if you put your window back in then your duct is perfectly legal. (It looks like from that picture that the window was removed which I do not see an allowance for in the IT ruleset.)

Stephen

We are allowed to install brake ducts. But in that allowance, there isn't a section that says we can use a hose clamp. But of course, we all use hose clamps to install the ducts because it says we can duct the brakes for cooling.

Here, I can install a NACA duct and it can be 100 square inches in size. If the NACA duct I choose is 100 square inches it might be larger than the window and might require the window be cut away to install it, e.g., gone.

Or, if that interpretation isn't favored, what if I cut away all about 1/4" of the window and glue a 95 sq inch NACA duct in place. Would that be more satisfactory?

[StephenB]

nope that comparison doesn't work for me. you ADDED a hose clamp to make it work. If you REMOVED a headlight or something then that would be a comparable argument.

Stephen

[Ron Earp]

I'm cutting that rear window out and installing a NACA duct.

Protest, bring it.

[Greg Amy]

i'm going to cheat.

Protest, bring it.

ftfy.

[Ron Earp]

Nice!

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think you could put your NACA duct in the quarter window *area* if you so choose.

David

So this simple thought process has me turned around on my position. The rules says it may be added. Doesn't say that you can replace. The rule assumes you are 'adding' to an area where the glass is already removed.

Good debate.

[lawtonglenn]

So this simple thought process has me turned around on my position. The rules says it may be added. Doesn't say that you can replace. The rule assumes you are 'adding' to an area where the glass is already removed.

Good debate.

+1

[ShelbyRacer]

ftfy.

Greg makes me giggle.

And, wow, every time I see one of these threads, I realize how much more I need to learn...

[manny]

i agree with Ron. +1.

[jumbojimbo]

So this simple thought process has me turned around on my position. The rules says it may be added. Doesn't say that you can replace. The rule assumes you are 'adding' to an area where the glass is already removed.

Good debate.

What amazes me is that clearly the rule was written with the idea of people adding vents to the already open/missing front windows. And clearly designed to prevent you from closing off the window with a "vent".

Granted, the wording could be twisted to include the rear windows. And you could say this is an example of a poorly written rule that depends on intent rather than explicit wording.

Why go against the clear intent of the rule just because you can sort of argue the wording of the rule could be intepreted that way. If you do so, you will (or should) force a rewrite of the wording, which creates needless work for other people and you've now spent time and money doing something that was clearly inteneded to be illegal in the first place. And now you'll have to undo it. All the while bitching about these BS rules that cost you time and money you knew you shouldn't have spent in the first place.

Seems like it would be easier to just follow the rule as intended and save everyone a lot of time and effort. Although granted, it did provide some diversion for rules geeks here.

[Gregf]

The reason several people chose to install their driver cooling into the quarter window here is just simplicity and cost. On a 944 the window is very small, and a 944 has no vent wing window that can be replaced as is the case with a Miata. To fabricate a structure to hold a Naca duct or similar device would interfere too much with visibility and potential inbreed/egress if you should need to escape through the window opening on the 944 model. Greg F.

[Knestis]

There are all KINDS of things we could do in the name of simplicity and cost that are still not allowed by the rules.

K

[Ed Funk]

....and there are approved methods of getting the rules changed.

[Gregf]

I did send a letter regarding this, but it has apparently been absorbed into the collective... It doesnt really matter for us regionally, as I dont think anyone will protest a racer with MS because of a single window. In his case he hauls around a 30lb ice chest, a 6lb fan and all of the ducting and hoses that keep his core temp under control. The other car is just a really big guy that struggles with the hot weather and needs cool air to cope. Greg F