SCCAForums.com

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, valances,

side skirts, and fender flares. 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.

Total surface area of all spoilers, splitters and rear wing may not

exceed 5 square feet as seen from above (see 12.9). 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.

While searching the ST forum about wings, I actually found this response to someone with an STU Evo asking about wings:

You might be better of answering the question whether you need an extra grip in the rear of the EVO? If you do, then by all means I would get a wing.

Mmmmmm.....

When traveling to San Diego a couple of years ago-----I went down and ventured into Mexico.....Tiajuana, I think it was....

Anyway, my ride was leaving to go back into California.....however I didn't finish my lunch of spicy chicken wings, and hurriedly had to think of something.......Not wanting to waste food, and still having an appetite.....well......I put some chicken wings down the front of my pants (Scott).."Whiplash"......was with me, and he couldn't take his eye's off of the artifically large bulge in my crotch.....I told him I was just hungry...and he said, "So am I" as he smiled at me.....

Anyway......at the border......the guard asked me if I was bringing back any food......I lied....didn't want to tell him about the "WINGS", that were keeping my balls company......for my snack later on back at the hotel room.

The ST body kit/aero allowance needs to go away.  It is self-contradictory and with SP allowing brakes and camber kits, is the last thorn in the side of smooth Stock -> SP progression.  I have no idea why it persists, yet it does so in the face of all reason.

As for legality, we only really have SP to look to for precedent of those (identical) words' interpretation.  An SP-style spoiler is likely just as (if not more) effective at Solo speeds vs. the airfoils you're thinking of, so if they have been deemed insignificant at Solo speeds, then so shall be the ST aero devices.

jzr:

The ST body kit/aero allowance needs to go away.  It is self-contradictory and with SP allowing brakes and camber kits, is the last thorn in the side of smooth Stock -> SP progression.  I have no idea why it persists, yet it does so in the face of all reason.

As for legality, we only really have SP to look to for precedent of those (identical) words' interpretation.  An SP-style spoiler is likely just as (if not more) effective at Solo speeds vs. the airfoils you're thinking of, so if they have been deemed insignificant at Solo speeds, then so shall be the ST aero devices.

 

So...you're telling me you put that wing on the 240 for looks?

Someone like yourself that prepares a car to the level that you do doesnt put a wing of that size on a car for no reason.

Im not attacking, so please dont take it that way, just asking........

David Lehman:

When traveling to San Diego a couple of years ago-----I went down and ventured into Mexico.....Tiajuana, I think it was....

Anyway, my ride was leaving to go back into California.....however I didn't finish my lunch of spicy chicken wings, and hurriedly had to think of something.......Not wanting to waste food, and still having an appetite.....well......I put some chicken wings down the front of my pants (Scott).."Whiplash"......was with me, and he couldn't take his eye's off of the artifically large bulge in my crotch.....I told him I was just hungry...and he said, "So am I" as he smiled at me.....

Anyway......at the border......the guard asked me if I was bringing back any food......I lied....didn't want to tell him about the "WINGS", that were keeping my balls company......for my snack later on back at the hotel room.

What comes to mind here is when Napolean Dynamite put those "tots" in his pants pocket to eat later........

I don't think you quite get it, I'll try again.

A wing or spoiler's purpose is to push down on the tires so they can produce more grip - extra normal force without extra vehicle weight, bla bla bla.

The percent increase in grip is a function of the aero device's size, effectiveness, and the vehicle's weight.  An A-Mod may weigh 750lbs, and make 750lbs. of downforce @70mph (just making this up), a ~100% (tire efficiency, etc., bla bla) increase forces the tires could produce.  A CSP car with a spoiler may weigh 1900 lbs. and only produce 75lbs. of downforce at the same speed - about a 4% increase.

We have already established that SP cars, restricted by the same wording around "effectiveness at Solo speeds", are ok to run the spoilers they do.

I noted that SP-style spoilers are likely to produce an equal or greater amount of increase in normal force (created by traditional downforce and the moment from the drag) on the rear tires, vs. the airfoils you see on ST cars.  Of course, there are many variables in play (car shape being a big one) and Solo isn't about to get a wind tunnel to ever let us know for sure.

Thus, a heavier than-SP-car working with a less-effecitve-than-SP aero device is receiving a contribution from the device that is less significant than the already-known-legal benefit received by an SP car with an SP spoiler.

Graph of significance, defined as % increase in normal force to tires

|---------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|----------------------->
No downforce/Zero significance      ST downforce      SP downforce       Significant downforce     A-Mod downforce       More downforce/more significance

I have my own feelings about wings in ST and SP, but the real problem I have is the use of the word "significant."  

 That's a bad word.  It is subjective.  Subjective is bad when it comes to protests and findings.  

I live in Colorado.  I'd not consider 8" of snow a "significant" snowfall.

Dump 8" on Washington DC, though.....I'd bet THEY woulc call that "significant." 

Sigh.  Neither one of us is wrong, and we're talking about exactly the same thing.

I'm going to put one of those flat spoilers like the hotrod drag cars have on the 2002.  That'll be rad.

Iain

So I have to assume by your response that there was an SP protest at some point that ruled what "significant" was?

I dont see how else you could arrive at this statement:

 "We have already established that SP cars, restricted by the same wording around "effectiveness at Solo speeds", are ok to run the spoilers they do"

I highlighted the key point in the rule above that very specifically states "which have no significant aerodynamic function

at Solo speeds."..

 I've always seen that statement in the rules as exactly that, a statement.  Meaning if you follow the guidelines given in the rules regarding area, overhang, max height, you have an aero dynamic device that has no significant aerodynamic function at solo speeds.

 They are effective stability trim tabs, but your car isn't going to pull 3g's just by putting a rules legal wing on.

Marshall Grice:

I highlighted the key point in the rule above that very specifically states "which have no significant aerodynamic function

at Solo speeds."..

 I've always seen that statement in the rules as exactly that, a statement.  Meaning if you follow the guidelines given in the rules regarding area, overhang, max height, you have an aero dynamic device that has no significant aerodynamic function at solo speeds.

 They are effective stability trim tabs, but your car isn't going to pull 3g's just by putting a rules legal wing on.

The wording is pretty bizarre and seemingly contradictory. Up to 5 sqft - yet not aerodynamically relevant? 5sqft is pretty darn big and clearly aerodynamically relevant. And, as asked, if it is not aerodynamically relevant - why do so many people have them? ANd, there is all teh wording about whether you can have a wing or a spoiler based upon what you have OEM. You can only keep the same style if you have one OEM, but if you don't have one you can put whatever you want on? Why the odd limitation here?

 Very strange rule.

Marshall Grice:

I highlighted the key point in the rule above that very specifically states "which have no significant aerodynamic function

at Solo speeds."..

 I've always seen that statement in the rules as exactly that, a statement.  Meaning if you follow the guidelines given in the rules regarding area, overhang, max height, you have an aero dynamic device that has no significant aerodynamic function at solo speeds.

 They are effective stability trim tabs, but your car isn't going to pull 3g's just by putting a rules legal wing on.

That makes good sense to me...

I've always wondered about the wording too - I just didn't want to drill holes in my Z to put a wing on it (but I was curious if I could actually feel/change handling/grip w/ a large wing)

I recently submitted a letter asking for clarification from the SEB given the clearly contradictory wording for both SP and ST.  As Jason mentioned earlier, there's also the progression issue now that the ST cars are running large wings and SP, spoilers.  IMO, they need to decide whether they're for aero or not (effectiveness will be dictated by allowances), and if they are, it's probably time to allow ST sized wings into SP.  Either that or they'll need to completely readdress the wording and intent of 15.2 as well as 14.2.

Hopefully we'll see a response in the next Fastrack.

Whiplash_Motorsports:

So I have to assume by your response that there was an SP protest at some point that ruled what "significant" was?

I dont see how else you could arrive at this statement:

 "We have already established that SP cars, restricted by the same wording around "effectiveness at Solo speeds", are ok to run the spoilers they do"

I did not arrive at that statement.  I just don't like the wording. 

There has not (yet) been a protest surrounding the significance of a spoiler at solo speeds; there have been a LOT of protests which hinge on ambiguity; "unrestricted" or "any" or "unlimited."

I dread that protest, if I serve on the PC - I wound tend to agree with the general notion that there's no reason to bolt a chunk of plexiglass to the trunk of your car if it is not effective, though. 

Uggh.  Mental note - review wording next call.

Iain/SPAC/unofficial/etc

Iain Mannix:

Whiplash_Motorsports:

So I have to assume by your response that there was an SP protest at some point that ruled what "significant" was?

I dont see how else you could arrive at this statement:

 "We have already established that SP cars, restricted by the same wording around "effectiveness at Solo speeds", are ok to run the spoilers they do"

I did not arrive at that statement.  I just don't like the wording. 

There has not (yet) been a protest surrounding the significance of a spoiler at solo speeds; there have been a LOT of protests which hinge on ambiguity; "unrestricted" or "any" or "unlimited."

I dread that protest, if I serve on the PC - I wound tend to agree with the general notion that there's no reason to bolt a chunk of plexiglass to the trunk of your car if it is not effective, though. 

 

Uggh.  Mental note - review wording next call.

 

Iain/SPAC/unofficial/etc

That was directed at Jason..I should have quoted him..sorry about that.....

I too have written a letter..the wording is so obviously flawed its ridiculous....

Whiplash_Motorsports:

 I highlighted the key point in the rule above that very specifically states "no significant aerodynamic function at Solo speeds"..

I'm finding it extremely difficult to believe that these folks would install such a massive wing for any other purpose than aerodynamic function. If it provided no function, then you would remove it to save weight, so what gives?

Like said above, "significant" is the key word. After rigorous testing, my wing does provide aerodynamic function at solo speeds, it is just not significant. ;-)

Actually, I should just take it off. 

This one seems to come up once a year or so on varioius forums (the Miata.net guys just finished a long one on SP spoilers).

Not judging whether it is a good idea or not, here's the history:

The first section is one of intent, not a rule that can be enforced.  The second part, which defines the full allowance and restrictions, what is enforceable.  We have a number of rules in the rulebook like this.  Why? To keep track of intent for future rulesmakers clarification/modification. 

For example,  the ST intent section has never changed.  But the restrictions have.  When it was clear that the original area dimension was too large to remain "insignificant" it was reduced from 8 sg ft to 5 (the dimensions of the typical NOPI wing, BTW). Other minor tweaks have also resulted from applying the intent against the reality.

So, the real question is, are today's wings that meet the restrictions "significant" enough that tighter restrictions are needed? 

--Andy

Andy Hollis:

So, the real question is, are today's wings that meet the restrictions "significant" enough that tighter restrictions are needed? 

Seems like one reasonable way to judge this would be to see if more than 10% of the cars at nationals have a wing.

Mark

marka:

Seems like one reasonable way to judge this would be to see if more than 10% of the cars at nationals have a wing.

Mark

Only problem there: most Evos and the STIs up to '07 come with a wing from the factory. 

Mike