mwilson7 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Could you tell me if fender flares like this would be considered legal in AI? I am just trying to understand what the definition of "the basis of the fender or quarter panel must be OEM" refers to in rule 7.4.6 . If the above flares are legal how much metal can be replaced before it's considered illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I'd think that car would be illegal. The entire quarter panel is replaced! I assume that this car is not currently running in or intended for AI competition?? Who's is it? I'm surprised that some enterprising aftermarket company with some bodywork experience doesn't make a simply rivet-on Fox body flare, especially now that the AI rules would make it the best selling race product on the market. They could be made of fiberglass, but urethane or rubber would be even better for durabilty reasons, and they would cost ZERO to install - just cut out the excess sheetmetal, drill and rivet, and you're done. No Bondo, No sanding, and only paint them if you want to. This kind of simple flare is very popular among the off-road truck crowd. The Maier Racing units are nice, but they're not legal by my interpretation (for the same reason the ones pictured above aren't legal), and there is no other Mustang specific fender flare on the market that I know of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilson7 Posted December 21, 2004 Author Share Posted December 21, 2004 That car is being built for AI based on their interpretation of the rules I am guessing. As the rules are very vague it leaves a lot to interpretation which is why I'm asking in a public forum for some type of clarification. The line between AI and AIX is getting pretty blurred....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtborton Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Well it's still steel, so what advantage is it giving him? There's a rule on track width, so why shouldn't it be legal? It's going to look a lot better than a set of rivet on flares too....they never put rivet on flares on a stock Mustang either, I don't get the big deal on this stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizlbits Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Well it's still steel, so what advantage is it giving him? There's a rule on track width, so why shouldn't it be legal? It's going to look a lot better than a set of rivet on flares too....they never put rivet on flares on a stock Mustang either, I don't get the big deal on this stuff. I agree entirely. This is rehashing something that's already been approved with Gregs' car. It's steel, end of story. Spoken as a competator, not as a director. Kurt, I won't take that crack about the rivited flares personally. Who knows what I may have next year..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilson7 Posted December 21, 2004 Author Share Posted December 21, 2004 So if it's steel it's ok but the rules say the flares can be made from basically anything (Fiberglass, CF, Rubber, etc). Could I make CF 1/4 panel and be legal in AI? How about front fenders? How much needs to be factory sheetmetal. I am trying to understand where the line is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizlbits Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 So if it's steel it's ok but the rules say the flares can be made from basically anything (Fiberglass, CF, Rubber, etc). Could I make CF 1/4 panel and be legal in AI? How about front fenders? How much needs to be factory sheetmetal. I am trying to understand where the line is. I don't see the reasoning for your questions. 7.4.3 is pretty clear. "Only OEM (or the equivalent replacement of same type and material) body panels may be used in the American Iron Class." 7.4.3 states the composite material is for the flare only. I suggest if you are unclear to direct an exact explanation what you want to do to JWL or AI directors for approval and show exactly what you are asking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilson7 Posted December 21, 2004 Author Share Posted December 21, 2004 I think I was pretty clear in my original statement. What is the definition of "the basis of the fender". I've received a few emails from people already saying that the pictures I posted can't be legal for AI but others say they don't see a problem with it. I'm posting it for discussion because the rules don't appear to be clear enough. I thought the official procedure to ask tech questions was to post them here for clarification. Has that changed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbasf Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Chris, is that a fender flare or is it modified for tire clearance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizlbits Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 JWL is starting a discussion between the NASA higher ups (ruler makers) and they will be making a ruling on this soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 JWL is starting a discussion between the NASA higher ups (ruler makers) and they will be making a ruling on this soon. So JWL is calling RF.......? the above statement is to be taken in humor and not insulting, so before anyone gets their panties in a bunch please relax and find your zencenter. Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racercosmo Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I think I understand where Mark is going with this. If that much metal can be cut and replaced to make a fender flare, somebody could theoretically make a similar piece with carbon fiber and remove some weight in the process. The same goes for the front fenders. "This isn't a carbon fiber fender, it's an OEM fender with a cf flare." Where is the line drawn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I think I understand where Mark is going with this. If that much metal can be cut and replaced to make a fender flare, somebody could theoretically make a similar piece with carbon fiber and remove some weight in the process. The same goes for the front fenders. "This isn't a carbon fiber fender, it's an OEM fender with a cf flare." Where is the line drawn? Exactly the point of the original question. Can I make 'flares' that are carbon (or glass or aramid or aluminum etc.) but are really new quarter panels (or front fenders) that MAY be considered legal by the current standard because you are modifying the wheel opening for tire clearance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onralz Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I could see how this could be confusing to someone. I don't see how one would create a point on a fender where you couldn't change materials or cut beyond that. That would be a pain in the you know what to police. What wording would you guys suggest to eliminate this "confusion"? What benefit does the above car have over a car like Griswold or Brown's? What benefit in weight savings would it honestly be to make most of the fender carbon anyway? With the weight to thrust ratio, the only benefit would be getting weight off the front and stock fenders don't weigh too much anyway. We already have track limitations as well so there isn't a lot of benefit there either. In the car above, it could be said that he was hit in the rear and had to put all new metal on. Is there a rule that you have to use a factory quarter panel? Though it may be not in the spirit, it will be a nice looking way to do it and there isn't a competitive advantage to it over like say Greg's car. I guess my suggestion to you guys would be to find a way to word it to make it clearer and suggest it to JWL and RF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERVRCG Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 So, if the above fenders are legal...certainly not retaining the stock appearance (IMHO)...what prevents me from turning the fenders into anything I want them to be? Aero devices (making or adding them to fenders) Cutting holes in them for brake ducts Cutting holes for undercar venting Zuessing them to the roll cage structure seeing I already altered panels. 5.13"Interior body panels and sheetmetal may be bent or altered to accommodate the roll bar design." etc... Just simple examples, if all I have to meet is metal and a clean install. Mark, I'm I too far off base on this??? Do ya see where I'm going? Haven't really studied 05 rules yet. ERV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Mark- I'll just throw out this idea (the number and wording are made up, so please don't quote them)... How about a rule like... "The "flaring area" is defined, in side view, as an circle with 16" radius with the center defined by the center of the wheel." So basically, take a 16" ruler, hold one end at the center of the wheel, and if that ruler "sweeps out" over the entire fender, you're okay. Anything that's more than 16" away from the center of the wheel in sideview must be STOCK UNMODIFIED sheetmetal. Does anyone like this idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboss Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 How about specify only removal of factory sheetmetal within a certain, measurable distance from the original wheel arch. Also, serve no purpose other than to cover the tire in the same fashion as does the factory sheetmetal. If someone does come up with bolt-on flares then those could be approved on a an individual basis. Personally I like some of the ones available for 911's and if something similar to that could be done nicely for a mustang I would go for it. Would really need to be made of some sort plastic that is durable. No 'glass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 How about specify only removal of factory sheetmetal within a certain, measurable distance from the original wheel arch. Also, serve no purpose other than to cover the tire in the same fashion as does the factory sheetmetal. If someone does come up with bolt-on flares then those could be approved on a an individual basis. Personally I like some of the ones available for 911's and if something similar to that could be done nicely for a mustang I would go for it. Would really need to be made of some sort plastic that is durable. No 'glass. Presumably, the wheel arch would be cut out to make room for the flares, so it would be impossible to measure from the stock arch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtborton Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Wasn't meant to be a shot at your car Chris...you've seen my body work and obviously I'm not a body man. Heck, we had garden edging on our car for the first part of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilson7 Posted December 22, 2004 Author Share Posted December 22, 2004 I'm against this type of modificiation in AI for MANY reasons: 1. The cars start to look less like stock cars and more like clown cars. 2. Allowing a "fender flare" like that in AI pretty much nulifies the 7.4.3 replacement sheetmetal clause. 3. There is no line in the sand with the current rule. 4. I believe that seeing this level of modification will deter people from running AI because it's definitely increasing the $$$ and time required to prep a car. 5. There is quite a huge potential weight save on CF rear 1/4's and front fenders depending on the car. Go lift a front fender from a pre 74 car and you'll see some pretty good weight. 6. Explain how you need to modify sheetmetal that the tire will never touch for tire clearancing. I would argue that only the metal that the tire could come in contact as it goes through its range of motion should be modified. Eric is right on the money with his comments as well. Allowing this much freedom on the 1/4's and front fenders allows people to get a little to creative. I think Scott has the right idea. The question then becomes what is that dimension which would require measuring a few cars to see where that arc would land. It is obvious just by the amount of conversation here that the line is VERY blurry at the moment. There needs to be a clear line drawn that is black and white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff F Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Scott, the only problem with your proposal is that the allowable modification area changes with ride height, which makes enforcement all that much harder. Here's a question to discuss: Should the rules allow any bodystyle to get to the maximum track width, or should the fender rules be the limiting factor? For example, I have 275's on the back of a Fox with only minor fender rolling. It's tight, but they fit. To get to the maximum allowed width, I'd have to do surgery. My feeling is that the fender mods should be kept to a minimum-- rolling, stretching, slitting and adding material, but leave the factory opening intact. This allows me to make the largest allowable TIRE fit, but not necessarily at max width. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Jeff- I would have been happier if the AI rules had been left as-is. AI, I believe, as Mark does, should have tires which fit under stock bodywork. Every car I'm aware of can fit at least a 275 with some mild fender "rolling". 2" of trackwidth is simply not that much of an advantage. Besides, different cars already have different combinations of strengths and weaknesses based on things like weight, distribution, aero, suspension geometry, etc. etc. And I think Mark's point about the cost of entry is right on. One more thing you need to do if you have a Fox body and want to push the rules to the limit.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 So, if the above fenders are legal...certainly not retaining the stock appearance (IMHO)..... Actually, this fender does retain the stock appearance. The car in question is an 85 Capri, which had different fenders than a Fox3 Mustang. The width of the fender was/is about the same, but the shape is unique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERVRCG Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Thought so but couldn't be to sure. The point was still made. Thanks! ERV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbolx Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 I'm with Scott on this one. A "maximum distance from wheel centerline" limits how crazy this can get and keeps people with limited budgets involved in AI. I chose a fox body primarily on a cost basis. If I have to spend big money to keep it competitive, I'd honestly look at buying a different car and taking my entry fees elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.