Aero TAKE-BACKS in ST.... re: Deleting 14.2.F

[Fair!]

Some of this is old news (June 2010), but there's a twist. Read the whole post I put out to Bimmerforums on 5-20-10:

-------------May 20, 2010-----------------

Hey guys racing in ST/STX/STU/STR, just wanted to make sure you read the latest FasTrack for rules proposals....

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...-june-solo.pdf

Some good stuff and some questionable stuff. Lets start with what I think is a "Bad idea". Its a full deletion of AFTERMARKET WINGS in all ST classes.


$199 wing, soon to be.... BANNED! For excessive cost?!

Delete 14.2.F. Per the STAC: This removes the original allowance for aftermarket body kits, wings, spoilers and other appearance items, whose original purpose (i.e. attract Sport Compact enthusiasts) is no longer relevant, and which a number of competitors were using for performance advantage.

Whoa whoa who... they mention bodykits and such but this means... no more aftermarket wings. This is something a good number of ST* competitors have done, and its a TAKE BACK.

Since the FasTrack proposal leaves out the entirety of rule 14.2.F, we should review it here:

F. Addition of spoilers, splitters, body kits, rear wings and nonfunctional scoops/vents is allowed. The intent of this allowance is to accommodate commonly available appearance kits, and replicas thereof, which have no significant aerodynamic function at Solo speeds. Body kits are limited to bumper covers (including modified OE bumper covers), valances, side skirts, and fender fl ares. Standard parts may not be removed except for the substitution of spoilers, rear wings, bumper covers and valances. Rear wings must attach only aft of the rear wheel centerline.

The allowances regarding wings and spoilers only allow swapping like for like if the original device was not an OE option as configured by the factory, i.e. a spoiler for a spoiler or a wing for a wing. If a vehicle is available without a wing or spoiler from the manufacturer then either can be installed.

Surface area of all splitters, spoilers and rear wing (see 12.9) shall not exceed 5 square feet in sum total. Substitution of rear spoilers or wings must retain any original third brake light functionality unless otherwise equipped. No underbody panels may be added or substituted. The drilling of holes for the purpose of mounting these pieces is permitted.

If you do NOT want this TAKE BACK to occur.... write the SEB and mention the changes to 14.2.F proposed should NOT take affect. seb@scca.com, include your full name and SCCA member number. Thanks!


Well after sending in 3 letters to the SEB email address I just found out this -
The SCCA has implemented a new letter submission and tracking system, and is no longer accepting letters at this email address. The new system will reduce the time required to process letters, allow you to track your letter, and give you the opportunity submit your email address for direct notification from the Solo Events Board.

Please go to www.sebscca.com to submit your letter.
http://www.sebscca.com/[/I]

--------------Nov 24, 2010---------------


And now.... maybe they are backpeddlling?

SEB MINUTES | Oct. 27, 2010

STREET TOURING
- The BOD has directed the SEB to further discuss the proposal to delete 14.2.F. The proposal has been referred back to the STAC.

So which is it... remove 14.2.F (take backs!) or not? I'm hoping not. I can see a need to avoid the "hole saw mod" on the front and rear bumper covers, but removing the existing wing allowance (since 2004!) after 6 years seemed a bit harsh. Maybe there's a reprieve??? I hope so, now that we're headed into STX for 2011.

[Andy Hollis]

Re: Aero TAKE-BACKS in ST.... re: Deleting 14.2.F

But "haves and have nots" means cost to some extent. Or haves (Mazda, Ford, etc) and have nots (BMW, Subaru, etc)

Sure. But it wasn't why the line was drawn where it was drawn. It was done because of performance implications.

--Andy

[hancheyb]

Re: Aero TAKE-BACKS in ST.... re: Deleting 14.2.F

It isn't about cost.

The rules as written last year were a compromise to give folks the ability to do a little bit of customization but without any real aerodynamic effect. The thinking was, "if the factory approves this as an accessory for highway use, it isn't likely to be providing any real benefit". The factory usually has lots of liability and warranty issues to consider that put natural limits on them. Styling parts...not race parts.

Several letters have come in asking about legalities of various parts, most notably Mazdaspeed. Mazda has a Genuine Mazda Accessory catalog and also the Mazdaspeed stuff on their website. Separate tabs with different audiences. The intent was always to allow the former, but not the latter. We don't need factory race parts being legalized as it opens the door to all kinds of shenanigans. And then you get into the "haves" and the "have nots". Which then begins the parity whining.

The Ford stuff was way over the line, IMO. Not even close to a factory accessory. Them's real race parts.

--Andy

But "haves and have nots" means cost to some extent. Or haves (Mazda, Ford, etc) and have nots (BMW, Subaru, etc)

[Andy Hollis]

Re: Aero TAKE-BACKS in ST.... re: Deleting 14.2.F

It wasn't Terry in total, but the idea that companies are starting to offer REAL race parts that have real engineering behind it, before you know it, it gets out of hand. Ford has a DRY carbon hood too for $1200. If you can start buying that kind of part in a catalog it isn't long before the cost of entry into ST becomes $cary.

It isn't about cost.

The rules as written last year were a compromise to give folks the ability to do a little bit of customization but without any real aerodynamic effect. The thinking was, "if the factory approves this as an accessory for highway use, it isn't likely to be providing any real benefit". The factory usually has lots of liability and warranty issues to consider that put natural limits on them. Styling parts...not race parts.

Several letters have come in asking about legalities of various parts, most notably Mazdaspeed. Mazda has a Genuine Mazda Accessory catalog and also the Mazdaspeed stuff on their website. Separate tabs with different audiences. The intent was always to allow the former, but not the latter. We don't need factory race parts being legalized as it opens the door to all kinds of shenanigans. And then you get into the "haves" and the "have nots". Which then begins the parity whining.

The Ford stuff was way over the line, IMO. Not even close to a factory accessory. Them's real race parts.

--Andy

[McCall]

Re: Aero TAKE-BACKS in ST.... re: Deleting 14.2.F

It wasn't Terry in total, but the idea that companies are starting to offer REAL race parts that have real engineering behind it, before you know it, it gets out of hand. Ford has a DRY carbon hood too for $1200. If you can start buying that kind of part in a catalog it isn't long before the cost of entry into ST becomes $cary.

I just hate the cost argument. Racing isn't cheap, period so stop trying to police it. Also, a $1200 hood is a 1/3 the price of a nice set of coilovers and I don't hear anyone wanting to take those away to keep costs down...

[Fair!]

Re: Aero TAKE-BACKS in ST.... re: Deleting 14.2.F

Me and my big mouth...

[hancheyb]

Re: Aero TAKE-BACKS in ST.... re: Deleting 14.2.F

Brian - any insight into this, was it really just the Ford Motorsports parts that scared off the STAC?

Seems like the parts from all the other manufacturers (Mazdaspeed, etc) were pretty tame, and I'd be pretty surprised if the Ford Motorsports wing was the difference between a 3400 lb Mustang being competitive and not...

It wasn't Terry in total, but the idea that companies are starting to offer REAL race parts that have real engineering behind it, before you know it, it gets out of hand. Ford has a DRY carbon hood too for $1200. If you can start buying that kind of part in a catalog it isn't long before the cost of entry into ST becomes $cary.

[murph]

Re: Aero TAKE-BACKS in ST.... re: Deleting 14.2.F

Brian - any insight into this, was it really just the Ford Motorsports parts that scared off the STAC?

Seems like the parts from all the other manufacturers (Mazdaspeed, etc) were pretty tame, and I'd be pretty surprised if the Ford Motorsports wing was the difference between a 3400 lb Mustang being competitive and not...

[hancheyb]

Re: Aero TAKE-BACKS in ST.... re: Deleting 14.2.F

You shouldn't have gone all over the Internet saying you were going to use the Ford Motorsports catalog.

[Fair!]

Re: Aero TAKE-BACKS in ST.... re: Deleting 14.2.F

Damn it damn it DAMN it! One step forward, two steps back...

They've revised the freagin ST* following aero rule (14.2.F) yet again:

14.2. F. Addition of spoilers, splitters, rear wings, bumper covers, valances, side skirts, and non-functional sccops/vents is allowed provided that either:
1. It is a production part which is standard or optional equipment of a US model of the vehicle
2. It is listed in the vehicle manufacturer’s US accessory catalog for that vehicle for normal highway use.

That new wording actually left me a lot of options in the Ford Motorsports catalog. But no...

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...k-jan-solo.pdf

Tech Bulletin:

12. ST: Per the STAC, add the following to 14.2.F.2: “This does not allow for parts sold through the manufacturer’s performance division catalog (e.g. Ford Performance, Mopar Performance, Nismo, TRD, Mazdaspeed, HPD, Mugen, SPT, etc.)” (#5200)

Crap, crap, CRAP! Well then just omit #2 above, because that's all there is.



Blah. You guys are no fun.

I'll keep looking... keep trying...

[hancheyb]

Re: Aero TAKE-BACKS in ST.... re: Deleting 14.2.F

You guys need a little more time on your hands to think up more conspiracy theories. Andy isn't even driving a Civic.

[Fair!]

Re: Aero TAKE-BACKS in ST.... re: Deleting 14.2.F

Agreed, this re-writing is a pile. On top of that, the change to 14.2 C just made me laugh-

"C. Factory rub strips, emblems, mud flaps, bolt on front valance lips/spoilers, and fog lights (except those integral to a headlight or turn signal) may be removed. Rear wings may be removed so long as the vehicle retains any federally-mandated third brake light."

That had to be written by a team of Civic drivers! Since those cars need all the help they can get, they can now keep their "rub" strips off their cars as well remove their bolt-on front chin spoilers, which none of the ST(X/U) Civics currently have in place. Also, this new wording doesn't help out the STU Subies who were some of the main proponets for a change so they could in fact remove their big ole heavy rear wings. I know it's a minor point compaired to the change to 14.2 F but I think it provides some insight on who is writting these rules and their biases.

Two words: Andy Hollis

That is all.

[McCall]

Re: Aero TAKE-BACKS in ST.... re: Deleting 14.2.F

Agreed, this re-writing is a pile. On top of that, the change to 14.2 C just made me laugh-

"C. Factory rub strips, emblems, mud flaps, bolt on front valance lips/spoilers, and fog lights (except those integral to a headlight or turn signal) may be removed. Rear wings may be removed so long as the vehicle retains any federally-mandated third brake light."

That had to be written by a team of Civic drivers! Since those cars need all the help they can get, they can now keep their "rub" strips off their cars as well remove their bolt-on front chin spoilers, which none of the ST(X/U) Civics currently have in place. Also, this new wording doesn't help out the STU Subies who were some of the main proponets for a change so they could in fact remove their big ole heavy rear wings. I know it's a minor point compaired to the change to 14.2 F but I think it provides some insight on who is writting these rules and their biases.

[Fair!]

Re: Aero TAKE-BACKS in ST.... re: Deleting 14.2.F

Well, yet another new rule has been quickly run up the flagpole, just in time for this artificial 1/1/2011 deadline. And its a steaming pile. Here's the FasTrack link (Jan 2011) and my disgusted letter to the SEB.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...strack-jan.pdf

The battle over aero mods in Street Touring continues. The January 2011 FasTrack launched the latest salvo (and without member comment on this, yet another radical re-write):

Replace 14.2.F with the following:
14.2.F Addition of spoilers, splitters, rear wings, bumper covers, valances, side skirts, and nonfunctional scoops/vents is allowed provided that either:
1) it is a production part which is standard or optional equipment of a US model of the vehicle
2) it is listed in the vehicle manufacturer’s US accessory catalog for that vehicle, for normal highway use. Parts must be installed as directed by the manufacturer. Exact replicas (including weight) from alternate sources are also permitted.

Wow... what a poor conclusion to the 2010 epic 14.2.F rule re-write saga.

It started with a VERY WELL written rule that was published in the March 2010 FasTrack (hats off to whoever put that one out there). At that time I thought that the STAC had finally found someone to re-write the previous nearly "unrestricted" aero rule with something that resembled a real SCCA Solo rulebook entry, as it followed SMod's well written aero rules almost exactly (with lower limits). This encouraged a lot of us in Street Touring that had used wings in the past but worried about the "unrestricted" nature of the placement, width, and endplate sizes in the old 14.2.F rule wording. So this was a step in the right direction.

Then the waffling began.

A few people took a bit too literal interpretation of the now better worded rule, and took hole saws to a few bumper covers, and one or two ST/STS entries arrived with real wings. Then some racers, fearing more cost creep in their precious “low buck” classes, lost their damn minds. Then member comment was opened up for some radical new proposals – namely, deleting 14.2.F completely (aka: MASSIVE TAKE BACK). Lots of SCCA members apparently sent in a torrent of letters, and from what I could see on the many forums it was about 50-50 in favor of losing all aero mods in ST vs. keeping the new 14.2.F from March 2010. Then the member comment period stopped and the STAC started throwing darts at the board, with new rule proposals and deletions through the rest of 2010. The SEB finally passed one, but the BOD kicked it back. Every month there was a new direction for ST aero in FasTrack. We were quickly running out of time for the previously mentioned 1/1/2011 implementation deadline. And now, 10 days from the beginning of 2011, we get this steaming pile of dung.

Who's driving this bus, anyway? Why couldn’t this wait for the massive ST re-org set for 2012? I mean, if the ST Civics can still race wherever they damn well please for another year, why not let wings stay for the same time period?

This latest stab technically has no aftermarket wing or splitter provisions, except for exact replicas of stock pieces. But now there is MASSIVE model bias, allowing any available wing "within a model" (we're back to update/backdates again in ST??), and "within a manufacturer’s catalog". Oh boy, this will open up more loopholes than three conflicting committees can possibly plug in the next 12 months. Good luck with that!

Terry Fair - Vorshlag Motorsports

[Fair!]

Re: Aero TAKE-BACKS in ST.... re: Deleting 14.2.F

words of confusing wisdom from the great Andy Hollis...

How's about we don't get all wicked up yet again?

The BOD already voted on a revised proposal several weeks ago. Just waiting on the official announcement. Further banter is a waste of energy. Relax. It's good stuff. Trust me.

--Andy

PS: Fair is once again late to the party, yet still verbose. But thanks for no HUGE PICTURES!!

Crap. Looks like I jumped the gun, and have wasted several days looking at wings again.

So now 14.2.F is back in jeopardy, once again? So where are we for 2010 with respect to 14.2.F... Game on! Huge outcry from Honda/ST contingent. Game off! The Hondas rejoice! Game On?! Panic! Err... Game Off?

Andy, you guys lost me on the ping pong back and forth waffling this year. I wish the STAC, SEB and BOD would all get their ducks in a row and make a damned decision already... it has been 9 straight months of wishy-washy announcements, FasTrack postings, then denials, where it seemed the right hand doesn't know what he left is doing. It sounds like there's not really a unanimous consent here among the various committees. Is there someone filibustering this vote or what?

I'd just really like to know what the ST rules will be for 2011, which is in, ohh.... 11 days. Its already getting pretty late in the "2011 Prep Off-Season" to be re-writing rules yet again. I guess since the totally wide open (no roof height, max width, endplate max) original 14.2.F rule wording (seriously - who WROTE that mess?) lasted from ~2005 to March 2010, when it was finally redefined as well as SMod's aero rule this past March, that took 5 years? So will they take another 5 years to re-re-write it?

But therein lies the rub. The original aero rule was pretty lax and wide open, but in the March FasTrack 14.2.F was completely re-written like "a real rule", with real limits and better definitions. Which made me think, yea, they are finally taking aero seriously, and its here to stay. But it wasn't August before they were ready to toss it out entirely. Then November that was on hold. And now - not so much. So which is it????? Am I the only one that thinks this re-write is taking too long???

Tired of the waiting,