Jump to content

Non-OEM Aero Rule Solicitation--time to speak up!


Greg G.

Recommended Posts

Rob,

Truthfully, if it doesn't add any benefit then you'd be better to remove it for less drag. I've never seen one in person, but it shouldn't take long to remove it - right?

Respectfully, I don't/can't understand your argument. The fact is that it's not a factory part so it shouldn't be treated as such. Are you not wanting to remove it for asthetic purposes because you've gotten use to it being on the car?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 232
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Cobra4B

    28

  • Greg G.

    27

  • kbrew8991

    27

  • robbodleimages

    18

it does add a benefit. i never said that it didnt have a benefit. only reason that ford racing petitioned grand am to allow the wing was because the car needed it. this petitioning happened twice. both the fr500c and the boss 302r started without it and was granted it both times.

 

the car is unstable and it needs a little help. the bmw and porsche have no wing. the mustang's brick design gets enough help to stabilize the car. this year the camaro was given a similar wing.

 

being straight forward, i would very likely pass on st3 without the little wing. i wont race it without the wing. if i have to go full aero, i would go back to AI at 9.5 to 1 or go to st2 and run unrestricted.

 

my car sits at 9 to 1 right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9:1 unadjusted or adjusted? What size tire? What's your minimum comp weight? It may only take a minimal amount of ballast to hit 9.5:1 adjusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i guess i was under the impression it was straight power to weight in st3. if the same adjustments apply, at 3400lbs and 275 r compound tires, it would be different.

 

yet, i would still be pay filet mignon price for hamburger aero. which is as much my point as anything. the i can take my car to crawford composites and have them go to town on wing and end plates and splitter and dive planes and vented hood and engine bay air ducting and pay no more a penalty than i would with this not even fiberglass or carbon fiber wing.

 

fortunately even the conversation is fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am making a simple request. common sense. i am not asking for full blown aero.

just the little piece that was developed for the non-aero grand am series.

 

Why should you be allowed aero parts with no weight/HP penalty but others are not?

 

In other words, why should you get special rules just for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yet, i would still be pay filet mignon price for hamburger aero. which is as much my point as anything. the i can take my car to crawford composites and have them go to town on wing and end plates and splitter and dive planes and vented hood and engine bay air ducting and pay no more a penalty than i would with this not even fiberglass or carbon fiber wing.

 

That's what we want, all or nothing.

So if you are going to go aero, youmay as well go big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the rear bumper I was refering to earlier in this thread. Thoughts?

 

SideView.jpg

 

Not OEM. Just my opinion.

The little flares on the side wouldn't bug me at all. Those are for looks. However, the mini duckbill spoiler thing would push that to the aero points side to me. Not because that specific part would create a meaningful benefit, but because it would open a can of worms for some other type of fascia with an integrated spoiler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just sucks because it'll have to be changed out to officially run ST3 no aero. I understand there are no exceptions, but I could probably fart and have more aero affect than this bumper would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok...never hurts to ask. i will make my class decision based on that then.

That's just what some of us want, doesn't mean that's what we'll get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok...never hurts to ask. i will make my class decision based on that then.

That's just what some of us want, doesn't mean that's what we'll get.

true story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

after looking at smith's little lip getting aero smackdown, i wonder....if you stick your hand out the window and tilt the leading edge down....is it aero points??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

after looking at smith's little lip getting aero smackdown, i wonder....if you stick your hand out the window and tilt the leading edge down....is it aero points??

That's why I flick people off when I put my hand out.... less drag so it costs me less points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many points will a hood vent get? What if I were to tape mine up rather than buy a hood, get it painted, blah blah blah, can I miss-out on those points? What about riveting the OEM belly pan under my home-made belly pan?

 

"Non OEM belly pan" points should be charged to the fascia because no one is going to run a modded fascia without changing the belly pan (think about it).

 

It seems that we're getting into charging points to mods that provide no performance increase, but provide a reliability increase. For those who say "if it's non-BTM, charge it points," I say to you "go run a spec class because that's where your attitude belongs. I think 90% of people running TT would like to run a spec class, but for one reason or another we are not, charge points that matter on mods than matter. Bumping up a class on points because I want my car to run under 210*f in the 105* Texas heat, without a real performance increase, is unreasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why complicate the step up from ST3 to ST2 to include motor changes AND an entire aero package. If I were an ST regional director, I'd resign ASAP if the rules are so complicated to keep track of I have to go insane trying to stay on top of every time someone makes a change to their car from event to event.

 

Keep it simple. Open Aero as it always has been. Afterall, we are building RACECARS here folks. They should NOT look like the street cars parked in the spectator lot. Next thing you know they will be requiring OEM dashes in our RACECARS.

 

I have to ask why are we considing making significant changes to the ST rules for the 4 or 5 vette drivers in this forum who are also in the AMERICAN IRON forum begging to run there...? There is NOTHING in the rules that states every racer MUST have a fully prepped car. I run 300lbs overweight in ST2 and I deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buddy... We didn't ask to have our class (PTA/TTA) cancelled. We never asked for ST3. We had a class that required few mods and are now dumped into a class requiring tons of mods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an odd thought, but perhaps there should be a two tier aero system?

 

A small -.1 mod factor for smaller hood vents, wheel flares, spoilers, lips and splitters, and a full -.5 mod factor for larger, more significant aero mods. That would reduce the penalties "near OEM" parts and still provide a clear line between mild and/or cosmetic aero and developed aero.

 

I have no idea what would count as "smaller", but I suspect it would be different for lips and splitters than it would for spoilers. Perhaps 2" or 3" for lips/splitters and 6" or less for width and 4" or less off the body for spoilers? Probably something like a 2" or 3" allowance for "small" fender flares. Someone else can suggest ideas for hood vents. Actually this idea is kind of a mess, it would spiral into a complex morass faster than someone could say "aftermarket Spoon S2000 hardtop".

 

Personally, I feel that an ST class should be allowed unrestricted aero. However, since some ST3/TT3 competitiors are essentially being forced into this rules package from a non-aero oriented rules set, I can understand the desire for aero mod factors. Honestly, I suspect that over time, all ST3/TT3 cars may well end up with aero regardless. Well developed aero should be more than worth the penalty on almost any track.

 

If there are aero mod factors, they should probably be consistent across all of the ST1/2/3 & TT1/2/3 range. STR should probably remain with unlimited aero.

 

On further thinking:

 

Perhaps instead of an aero penalty, provide a +.3 (bonus) mod factor for cars running 100% OEM replacement shaped bodywork. That gives a of a kick to those who don't want to modify the exterior of their car, but still preserves the the "free aero" spirit of ST/STR. OEM bodywork with developed aero could be disallowed the +.3 bonus.

 

I actually prefer this last idea over any form of aero penalty. And it has a current NASA rules precedent; Lotus Sevens/Caterhams/Clubmans are currently given a +.5 Mod factor in ST if no areo modifications are applied to the car. And I'd suggest retaining the +.5 for the Seven clones, they really do need it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new ST3 rules basically give a 0.5 mod factor for no aero. That is the equivalent of 20 RWHP.

 

That is too small of a mod factor, a full aero body is worth several seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buddy... We didn't ask to have our class (PTA/TTA) cancelled. We never asked for ST3. We had a class that required few mods and are now dumped into a class requiring tons of mods.

This is what I heard over and over and over again from all of my TTA drivers that were going to do TTA in 2013... every. single. one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an odd thought, but perhaps there should be a two tier aero system?

 

A small -.1 mod factor for smaller hood vents, wheel flares, spoilers, lips and splitters, and a full -.5 mod factor for larger, more significant aero mods. That would reduce the penalties "near OEM" parts and still provide a clear line between mild and/or cosmetic aero and developed aero.

 

I have no idea what would count as "smaller", but I suspect it would be different for lips and splitters than it would for spoilers. Perhaps 2" or 3" for lips/splitters and 6" or less for width and 4" or less off the body for spoilers? Probably something like a 2" or 3" allowance for "small" fender flares. Someone else can suggest ideas for hood vents. Actually this idea is kind of a mess, it would spiral into a complex morass faster than someone could say "aftermarket Spoon S2000 hardtop".

 

Personally, I feel that an ST class should be allowed unrestricted aero. However, since some ST3/TT3 competitiors are essentially being forced into this rules package from a non-aero oriented rules set, I can understand the desire for aero mod factors. Honestly, I suspect that over time, all ST3/TT3 cars may well end up with aero regardless. Well developed aero should be more than worth the penalty on almost any track.

 

If there are aero mod factors, they should probably be consistent across all of the ST1/2/3 & TT1/2/3 range. STR should probably remain with unlimited aero.

 

On further thinking:

 

Perhaps instead of an aero penalty, provide a +.3 (bonus) mod factor for cars running 100% OEM replacement shaped bodywork. That gives a of a kick to those who don't want to modify the exterior of their car, but still preserves the the "free aero" spirit of ST/STR. OEM bodywork with developed aero could be disallowed the +.3 bonus.

 

I actually prefer this last idea over any form of aero penalty. And it has a current NASA rules precedent; Lotus Sevens/Caterhams/Clubmans are currently given a +.5 Mod factor in ST if no areo modifications are applied to the car. And I'd suggest retaining the +.5 for the Seven clones, they really do need it...

I like that idea, but that gets ST3 too close to ST2 to have much of a meaningful difference. I think some of the idea behind the 9.5:1 with aero power/weight was to attract other cars that can't hit the lower power/weight ratios as easily or as reliably.

 

The more I've thought about it they should have just cancelled PTA/TTA and replaced it with nothing. Force us all into ST2/TT2(S). Leave ST2/TT2 at 8.7:1 and provide a 0.7 mod factor for "No aero" so a no aero car can run at 8.0:1. That would make the class attractive for all the ex SCCA T1 guys who are getting messed over by SCCA trying to slow them down and split the Corvettes up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the rear bumper I was refering to earlier in this thread. Thoughts?

 

SideView.jpg

 

 

From what the collective NASA officials made Morris do to his ACP splitter at Nationals (he had to cut off the little bumps on each side), I say those little bump outs on the bottom of the rear bumper cover would count as canards. And that lip on top definitely opens up the door for more interpretations of rear downforce. David Farmer made a duct tape spoiler on his C6Z06 that was not much higher than that and it functionally provided some stability to the rear of the car at speed.

 

My vote for this specific bumper cover is that it is not OEM and would count as an aero mod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for where to draw the line, make it easy. If it is not easy, then we might as well go back to Performance Touring rules.

If it is not a factory available option on that generation of car, then it is an aero mod and falls into the ST3 9.5:1 class.

 

If that means allowing an S2000 R-model to run at ST3 9.0:1, then so be it. There will be a ringer in every crowd. OR, specifically call out the odd-model factory built race cars as having to stay at ST3 9.5:1. It is far easier to list a few specific car models in the rules than having to list all of the possible combinations.

 

 

Rob,

 

Sorry, but this would include categorizing the Steeda replacement wing as an aero mod. Unfortunately, to create an easy ruleset that is easily policed by the directors and particpants, the line is going to get drawn in a place that does not make everyone happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...