Some things got missed

[Rabbit07]

Who cares? Does it keep you from racing in IT? Is it really that much of a pain to keep your washer bottle? I just don't get it. It's just a point to needlessly bitch about, no?

And before you say, 'if it's no big deal, just allow the removal of that stuff...' it's not about one item. It's about everyone thinking something different is 'needless'. If you combined all of those requests, you would have no dashboards, plexi windshields, alternate fenders, and the list goes on and on. We all have our 'line in the sand' - and they are all in a different spot. There is no harm in leaving it at the greatest common denominator. Really.

Andy,

I agree with you on many points. That being said I have talked to many who don't agree with the status of IT. I use the washer bottle comment tounge and cheek as an example.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

I agree with you on many points. That being said I have talked to many who don't agree with the status of IT. I use the washer bottle comment tounge and cheek as an example.

So what do you mean by 'status of IT'? If you mean, "I know some guys who would build IT cars if they allowed the removal of the washer bottle...", I call BS.

Now on motor mounts, I voted for those and think it makes sense logically to allow them given the mods currently allowed and teh nature of what we are doing.

[Rabbit07]

So what do you mean by 'status of IT'? If you mean, "I know some guys who would build IT cars if they allowed the removal of the washer bottle...", I call BS.

Now on motor mounts, I voted for those and think it makes sense logically to allow them given the mods currently allowed and teh nature of what we are doing.

Come on, I told you that the washer bottle was . I wasn't being serious about the washer bottle. Then engine mounts however........

[Dave Gomberg]

That will be corrected in the next Fastrack - 48x10.75 will be the number.

Dave

This board needs an "egg-on-face" or at least a "really red-faced" smiley because, through a miscommunication, I got this wrong. The current 8.50 inch chord will remain. My apologies for misleading anyone here. (This is why we have a policy of not leaking things until the Fastrack appears and why we're sorry when we bust that policy.)

Dave

[Greg Amy]

The current 8.50 inch chord will remain.

Ugh.

Dave, what is the purpose of this rule change from 2010 for STU? Will there be further opportunity for feedback from members in regard to these rules changes in STU from 2010 to 2011?

It's one thing to make the new smaller wing size a separate rule for STL, a class that never existed before January 2011; it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish to change the rule for STU without further membership and competitor feedback (and, IMO, reasonable supporting justification). You are making parts illegal in 2011 that are perfectly legal today; I sincerely hope that is not a change you are taking lightly.

And in regard to STL, is there a basis for that chosen wing size? Is the STAC/CRB aware of reasonable availability of such a size, or is it a "POOMA"?

On edit: And in regard to not "leaking" things in advance of publication, I'd certainly much prefer that these items get out in the open for reasonable discussion prior to final publication, for then they can be reasonably vetted before being "cast in stone". As I've written many, many times before, it is just NOT POSSIBLE for a handful of guys on a concall to figure out all the possibilities of what the masses will think of or feel. Better to take the heat before it's irreversible than to take it after.

GA, very very not pleased with this newest revelation...

[dickita15]

Ugh.

Dave, what is the purpose of this rule change from 2010 for STU? Will there be further opportunity for feedback from members in regard to these rules changes in STU from 2010 to 2011?

It's one thing to make the new smaller wing size a separate rule for STL, a class that never existed before January 2011; it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish to change the rule for STU without further membership and competitor feedback (and, IMO, reasonable supporting justification). You are making parts illegal in 2011 that are perfectly legal today; I sincerely hope that is not a change you are taking lightly.

And in regard to STL, is there a basis for that chosen wing size? Is the STAC/CRB aware of reasonable availability of such a size, or is it a "POOMA"?

On edit: And in regard to not "leaking" things in advance of publication, I'd certainly much prefer that these items get out in the open for reasonable discussion prior to final publication, for then they can be reasonably vetted before being "cast in stone". As I've written many, many times before, it is just NOT POSSIBLE for a handful of guys on a concall to figure out all the possibilities of what the masses will think of or feel. Better to take the heat before it's irreversible than to take it after.

GA, very very not pleased with this newest revelation...

In fairness to the CRB the wing change was put out for member input in the August fastrack although I admit it was part of a very large rewrite. There was certainly plenty of time for member input.

[dickita15]

Well, the "get an allowance" aspect is a thorny subject. What kind of allowance? Why? How will they prove they need it? Who decides to hand it out? You know where that goes...straight into smoke filled back rooms with politics and good old boys handing out favors. I'm not accusing anyone on the STAC or CRb, but I AM saying that there is considerable potential for the appearance of less than fair play)

Jake, I think it is unreasonable to assume ST will not have competition adjustments. Every class in SCCA with more than one motor except IT has competition adjustments. Some are politically seen by some as politically distasteful as in prod and some are a little more objective (math based) as in GT. Even SM has them.

[lateapex911]

Dick, I'm thinking that, with a new class, it's a great time to lay the ground work and the parameters. I'd love to hear more about the bigger picture and the plans for such adjustments.

[dickita15]

Understood and I certainly do not have those answers. My only point is the IT mindset about completion adjustments (bleah) is an oddity in the club. It is great that Chris is being vocal on this forum, maybe he and others on the STAC can provide some insight here at to their vision. Just make sure if they do we all play nice.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Understood and I certainly do not have those answers. My only point is the IT mindset about completion adjustments (bleah) is an oddity in the club. It is great that Chris is being vocal on this forum, maybe he and others on the STAC can provide some insight here at to their vision. Just make sure if they do we all play nice.

It's also arguably one of the most successful categories because of that. Just because it's done in other classes doesn't mean you have to use it as a foundation for a fresh new idea. I, like many, submit that if you do use traditional comp adjustments, you will have another undersubscibed failure, ESPECIALLY when you start with a formula-based classing system. Why would I ever build a car for the class if I thought 4 guys in a room with results and video from the Runoffs could adjust my weight based on my success or failures? Create a sound foundation, let it sink or swim on it's merits.

SM works simply because there are only 3 chassis and it's easy to see and understand what changes what.

[Rabbit07]

Ugh.

Dave, what is the purpose of this rule change from 2010 for STU? Will there be further opportunity for feedback from members in regard to these rules changes in STU from 2010 to 2011?

It's one thing to make the new smaller wing size a separate rule for STL, a class that never existed before January 2011; it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish to change the rule for STU without further membership and competitor feedback (and, IMO, reasonable supporting justification). You are making parts illegal in 2011 that are perfectly legal today; I sincerely hope that is not a change you are taking lightly.

And in regard to STL, is there a basis for that chosen wing size? Is the STAC/CRB aware of reasonable availability of such a size, or is it a "POOMA"?

On edit: And in regard to not "leaking" things in advance of publication, I'd certainly much prefer that these items get out in the open for reasonable discussion prior to final publication, for then they can be reasonably vetted before being "cast in stone". As I've written many, many times before, it is just NOT POSSIBLE for a handful of guys on a concall to figure out all the possibilities of what the masses will think of or feel. Better to take the heat before it's irreversible than to take it after.

GA, very very not pleased with this newest revelation...

Well, the short answers is that someone somehow screwed up with the original STU wing size. The STO, ie GT size was used. The STAC became aware of this earlier in the year and used some of the WC cars running in STU to verify the WC touring car wing size. The change was made to insure that the wings were consistant with the Touring cars.

Greg, you are correct on the fact that we can not cover all bases and this is why I always like to bounce ideas off of people just like yourself. We like all the feedback we have gotten.

[Matt93SE]

Well, the short answers is that someone somehow screwed up with the original STU wing size. The STO, ie GT size was used. The STAC became aware of this earlier in the year and used some of the WC cars running in STU to verify the WC touring car wing size. The change was made to insure that the wings were consistant with the Touring cars.

Greg, you are correct on the fact that we can not cover all bases and this is why I always like to bounce ideas off of people just like yourself. We like all the feedback we have gotten.

The STO and STU wing size were never the same.

I'd love to see where these WC guys are getting wings.
Any chance the variable chord length APR GTC-200 "48" SCCA-spec" wing will be allowed? it's 8.75" in the center and tapers down to 6.75" on the ends, for an average of less than 8.5"

http://www.aprperformance.com/index....ask=view&id=36

[Rabbit07]

The STO and STU wing size were never the same.

I'd love to see where these WC guys are getting wings.
Any chance the variable chord length APR GTC-200 "48" SCCA-spec" wing will be allowed? it's 8.75" in the center and tapers down to 6.75" on the ends, for an average of less than 8.5"

http://www.aprperformance.com/index....ask=view&id=36

Stan Clayton, Dauntless Racing is who I have been told will make you any size wing.

[Matt93SE]

Stan Clayton, Dauntless Racing is who I have been told will make you any size wing.

Sure! For just a couple thousand dollars. It's okay, it's not THEIR money the SCCA is spending........

[Rabbit07]

Teching the average cord length is a nightmare. There are wing manufacturers out there because SCCA Touring car teams are still buying them. They are not inexpensive, but available. One difference in Club is we don't require you to have the wing as in Pro.

[Greg Amy]

There are wing manufacturers out there because SCCA Touring car teams are still buying them. They are not inexpensive, but available. One difference in Club is we don't require you to have the wing as in Pro.

That's not really true, Chris. As of the 2009 PRR there are five "approved" wings in Touring Car, one of which is no longer available (the HPM spec wing from 2005), one that is model specific (the Mugen RSX rear wing), and two more that are built by the teams just for their cars. I don't know the third one, but I'm trying to find it.

Point is, nowhere in the 2009 PRR is there an open "wings must be this size" specification.

As for the 2010 PRR, I'm still scouring through it and the VTS sheets to find where wings are called out for the GTS class. Can't find it. The GT spec are in the PRR (2.12.14.2), and they're also VTS-specific. The call out for approvals for wings in GT is 72" length and 12" chord.

Yeah, the custom-made Dauntless wings are $2500-3000; the easily-available off-the-shelf APR wing that has a max chord of 8.75" - one quarter of an inch more than the current-current STL spec - is $625, including brackets.

Let's not dig our heels in there and be stupid about this...there's a lot of "things getting missed" here that should be open to consideration.

GA

[Z3_GoCar]

Stan Clayton, Dauntless Racing is who I have been told will make you any size wing.

Like I said in my other thread, if I wanted to throw a few $k at a rear wing I'd go down the road to Scaled Composites. I'm sure they have a super-critical, low drag-high down force profile airfoil that would do the job.

[Greg Amy]

Ok, so I'm perusing the PRR and WC regs from 2009 and 2010. Best I can tell, for 2010 there were basically FOUR prep levels in THREE classes:

- GT, consisting of the big bore cars, lots of mods including wings;
- GTS and TC, two different performance potential classes of cars with limited prep and no wings;
- 2009 PRR-spec WC Touring cars, permitted to run in GTS, allowed to run wings to the 2009 PRR, which consisted only of the five wings I described above.

Ergo...unless I'm reading the rules incorrectly here...there is no World Challenge Touring Car wing size listed anywhere.

What am I missing here...?

GA

Verbiage from "2010 World Challenge Technical Bulletin 1", January 2010:

World Challenge has been restructured into three classes: Grand Touring (GT), Grand Touring Sport (GTS), and Touring Car (TC). As a result the Authorized Modifications Article has been rewritten, with fewer modifications permitted than in 2009. Many permitted modifications have been moved into the GT Specific Technical Regulations section, to allow vehicles competing in GT the same modifications as permitted in 2009.

Currently the GTS and TC Specific Technical Regulations are relatively short, as the GTS and TC class share essentially the same regulations.

Vehicles built to the 2009 and older TC regulations will be permitted to run in GTS. The additional modifications these vehicles were allowed will be added to their VTS sheets. These vehicles may also be homologated into the current TC class, with fewer modifications permitted.

Verbiage from the 2009 PRR specs, in regard to Touring Car wings:

2.12.1.1.2: TC Rear Wing: The wings on the approved TC list are the only rear wings permitted for use in the TC class. The teams will use the wings and endplates as provided.

2.12.1.1.3: Approved Rear Wing List for the Touring Car class

Company Name: Crawford Composite
Phone Number: 704.483.4175
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: CC612
Drawing Number: CC01

Company Name: HPM
Phone Number: 402.731.7301
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: HPM-9000-AU
Drawing Number: HP01

Company Name: Mugen/King Motorsports
Phone Number: 262.593.2438
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: 84112-XK5-K0S0
Drawing Number: MK01

Company Name: RealTime Racing
Phone Number: 262.268.2000
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: RTR0411H / RTR0411S
Drawing Number: RT01 / RT02

Company Name: Wheels America Racing / Murillo Racing
Phone Number: 707.280.6783
Email: [email protected]
Part Number: WAR1020
Drawing Number: WA01

[Matt93SE]

In fairness to the CRB the wing change was put out for member input in the August fastrack although I admit it was part of a very large rewrite. There was certainly plenty of time for member input.

In fairness to the competitor, this comment was brought up and submitted to the CRB (by me) on 8-10. It was 'tabled' by the STAC on 8-25, then reviewed by STAC and referred back to the CRB on 9-10. It was finally reviewed by the CRB on 11-3.

So the comments were made months ago. the rules were 'reviewed' and set in stone before the letter was completely processed.

[Z3_GoCar]

You might want to consider how other organizations handle rear wings. This is from BMW club's prepared class:

3. Spoilers and wings are free providing they do not exceed maximum
body width, are no higher than the roofline and do not extend more
than two inches past the farthest part of the rear bumper as viewed
from above the car.
a. Vehicles with a roofline that extends to the rear for the full
extent of the body may have these devices extend no more

than three inches above the roofline.

Lots of options there.