Remember the goal for the rule is to allow cars that have stubby back ends - VW Rabbits, Honda Civics, Dodge Omin - to have a way to mount the rear wing reasonably within the airflow. Also note that the regs require mounting the wing on "trunk/decklid" which really don't exist within a hatchback.

The reg as presented was already established (exists in the GT regs) and is reasonably easy to measure (I don't think we want to get into scrutineers measuring "inflection". I think the GT verbiage was a pretty good compromise. Yet, as always, some cars win, some cars lose*.

If you believe that your car does not get equitable treatment by the current regs, and you can support that contention via good data (say, photos of wind tunnel testing showing no airflow within the region the wing has to reside) then by all means submit a request to the CRB for line-item consideration. No promises, but can't hurt to ask (but don't expect wings hanging up well over the roof on MR-2s...)

- GA

* My Integra, for instance, got a nice shaft on this reg. Ignore the fact that the car is actually a hatchback by the true meaning of the word...while airflow is likely relatively smooth back there, because of the reduced height between the hatch and the roofline the underside of my wing is about 4 inches off the hatch. Decisively sub-optimal and in practice feels like it's not doing diddly-squat between full up and full flat.

Looks cool, though.