G-LOC Brakes
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 03 Feb 2012 02:19 PM by  snaponbob
Legal fender flares?
 101 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 6 << < 12345 > >>
Author Messages
Steve Hoelscher
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:831


--
19 Jan 2012 02:51 PM
Other than the vents in the top, I don't see a problem with the flare. Of course that assumes the OE fender is behind the flare and isn't trimmed excessively.

The shape, and whether or not it has aerodynamic benefit or not, cannot be effectively regulated. Any flare WILL redirect airflow and because it curves over the wheel opening, at some point, it might create downforce, no matter how small. So be it. Attempting to ban any aerodynamic benefit from a fender flare is tilting at windmills.
madlib
New Member
New Member
Posts:20


--
19 Jan 2012 03:04 PM
Where is the design constraint on the flares? It is not like the spoiler/splitter rule where they gave you certain criteria to work with. It just says you can add a flare...any kind of flare.

I really have nothing else to add. I am looking forward to see where this all goes though since I no longer have a "dog in this fight" anymore. I just can't compete with the E46 BMW. See you in Prepared (not with the Subaru).

Gil




Marshall Grice
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:303


--
19 Jan 2012 04:35 PM
madlib wrote:
Where is the design constraint on the flares? It is not like the spoiler/splitter rule where they gave you certain criteria to work with. It just says you can add a flare...any kind of flare.

Gil

The constraint is that it doesn't say you can add a flare with holes in it, that's all. The rule doesn't have to explicitly list everything you're not allowed to do because you're already not allowed to do anything that it doesn't say you can. the rule in question, nor anywhere else in the stock or sp rules, allows you to cut holes in your body work at your discretion. Adding a flare that has holes in it falls in the "no unauthorized mods may be performed to accommodate an authorized mod" category, plain and simple.

another example to illustrate my point. can one remove their entire rear quarter panel because it lies outboard of the rear hub face? say the C-pillar is also outboard of the hub face, can i cut that off too? would any protest committee uphold that i cut say (random number)10 square feet of steel off the back of my car for "tire clearance". Shoot i could cut the corners off all of my bumpers too right? still outboard of the hub face and thus unlimited, right?

Marshall Grice
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:303


--
19 Jan 2012 04:40 PM
BigEnos wrote:
If louvers (sp?) on the top of a faux fender are a valid aerodynamic element I'm gonna need that one explained to me. That being said, a giant wing-shaped flare with endplates probably won't pass muster as just a "fender flare." Clearly such a thing would rise to the level of being a significant aerodynamic aid and would not be legal.


http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/arti...rototypes/

those vents are just as blatant as a giant wing with end plates in my opinion.

madlib
New Member
New Member
Posts:20


--
19 Jan 2012 09:00 PM
Marshall Grice wrote:

The rule doesn't have to explicitly list everything you're not allowed to do because you're already not allowed to do anything that it doesn't say you can.

I still don't agree with you. For example, SP rules allow cross-drilled rotors. The rule does not prevent someone from drilling more holes into the surface. It's been done in ST...found legal until they rewrote the rules to prevent it from happening again.

SP also allows heatshields. What are the design constraints? How many bends can it have? What material can it be made of? The rule doesn't say I can add another bend to a heatshield, so you are saying I'm not allowed to modify it. And if I do, it is no longer a heatshield.

You're stifling my creativity (haha).

Bullitt2954
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:673


--
19 Jan 2012 09:08 PM
MattP wrote:

You could stick a bunch of plastic fish to the fender for a flare!

No, nope, nah, uh-uh. Wrong syntax-usage. What you're depicting there is "Fender Flair", not a "Fender Flare". Same sound, different words, different meanings (like "No" and "Know", or "To", "Too", and "Two")....

;^p~

kjchristopher
New Member
New Member
Posts:91


--
20 Jan 2012 01:12 AM
madlib wrote:
Marshall Grice wrote:

The rule doesn't have to explicitly list everything you're not allowed to do because you're already not allowed to do anything that it doesn't say you can.

I still don't agree with you. For example, SP rules allow cross-drilled rotors. The rule does not prevent someone from drilling more holes into the surface. It's been done in ST...found legal until they rewrote the rules to prevent it from happening again.

Huh?

snaponbob
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2862


--
20 Jan 2012 01:27 AM
kjchristopher wrote:
madlib wrote:
Marshall Grice wrote:

The rule doesn't have to explicitly list everything you're not allowed to do because you're already not allowed to do anything that it doesn't say you can.

I still don't agree with you. For example, SP rules allow cross-drilled rotors. The rule does not prevent someone from drilling more holes into the surface. It's been done in ST...found legal until they rewrote the rules to prevent it from happening again.

Huh?

Exactly.

BigEnos
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:570


--
20 Jan 2012 09:10 AM
Marshall Grice wrote:
BigEnos wrote:
If louvers (sp?) on the top of a faux fender are a valid aerodynamic element I'm gonna need that one explained to me. That being said, a giant wing-shaped flare with endplates probably won't pass muster as just a "fender flare." Clearly such a thing would rise to the level of being a significant aerodynamic aid and would not be legal.


http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/arti...rototypes/

those vents are just as blatant as a giant wing with end plates in my opinion.

They don't evacuate air from the fenderwell. There is a fender behind those vents (I presume). Please show me how the addition of holes in the top of the flare do a better job of evacuating air from a still-enclosed fenderwell than no flare at all. This is not the same as this case you posted.

BigEnos
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:570


--
20 Jan 2012 09:14 AM
Marshall Grice wrote:
madlib wrote:
Where is the design constraint on the flares? It is not like the spoiler/splitter rule where they gave you certain criteria to work with. It just says you can add a flare...any kind of flare.

Gil

another example to illustrate my point. can one remove their entire rear quarter panel because it lies outboard of the rear hub face? say the C-pillar is also outboard of the hub face, can i cut that off too? would any protest committee uphold that i cut say (random number)10 square feet of steel off the back of my car for "tire clearance". Shoot i could cut the corners off all of my bumpers too right? still outboard of the hub face and thus unlimited, right?

No. You can't remove metal from the fender in excess of what is needed for tire clearance. So if you can't show that the metal you removed would interfere with your tire you can't remove it. Period. That is illegal and it's very clearly stated as such.

snaponbob
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2862


--
20 Jan 2012 09:58 AM
BigEnos wrote:
No. You can't remove metal from the fender in excess of what is needed for tire clearance. So if you can't show that the metal you removed would interfere with your tire you can't remove it. Period. That is illegal and it's very clearly stated as such.

That is not what 15.2.A says. It does not even HINT at that. As it relates to the fender, it restricts modification of the stock sheet metal inboard of a specified point, but there is no reference to how big the opening can/can't be. That said, if one were to simply start hacking away at the fender to the point it could be seen as weight reduction, then there would be a different problem.

15.2 BODYWORK

Vehicles may only exceed the allowances of 13.2 as specified herein.

A. Fenders and bumpers may be modified for tire clearance. This includes the portion of a hood which serves as a fender/wheel well,
where applicable. This does not permit modifications to the chassis or bodywork inboard of the vertical plane of the hub/wheel mounting
face (at rest, with front wheels straight ahead). Flares may be added although tires may extend beyond the bodywork. Replacement of
complete hood, flared fenders, or quarter panels is prohibited. Plastic and rubber wheel well splash shields may be modified for tire
clearance and for installation of fender flares as allowed herein.

JBrettHowell
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
20 Jan 2012 10:02 AM
My initial reaction that these were illegal for SP was based in my belief that they were one piece, aftermarket replacement fenders. Given that they are OEM steel fenders with the flare grafted on, I don't see a problem with them given how the rules are currently written, but I agree that a clarification is probably in order (or the addition of the "may serve no other purpose" language).

Oh, and consider how a wide set of flares can impact the effectiveness of a front splitter that can only be as wide as the widest part of the bodywork.

Steve Hoelscher
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:831


--
20 Jan 2012 10:33 AM
snaponbob wrote:
BigEnos wrote:
No. You can't remove metal from the fender in excess of what is needed for tire clearance. So if you can't show that the metal you removed would interfere with your tire you can't remove it. Period. That is illegal and it's very clearly stated as such.

That is not what 15.2.A says. It does not even HINT at that. As it relates to the fender, it restricts modification of the stock sheet metal inboard of a specified point, but there is no reference to how big the opening can/can't be. That said, if one were to simply start hacking away at the fender to the point it could be seen as weight reduction, then there would be a different problem.

15.2 BODYWORK

Vehicles may only exceed the allowances of 13.2 as specified herein.

A. Fenders and bumpers may be modified for tire clearance. This includes the portion of a hood which serves as a fender/wheel well,
where applicable. This does not permit modifications to the chassis or bodywork inboard of the vertical plane of the hub/wheel mounting
face (at rest, with front wheels straight ahead). Flares may be added although tires may extend beyond the bodywork. Replacement of
complete hood, flared fenders, or quarter panels is prohibited. Plastic and rubber wheel well splash shields may be modified for tire
clearance and for installation of fender flares as allowed herein.

Bob, the very first sentence in A is: "Fenders and bumpers may be modified for tire clearance". That sentence defines the purpose and limitations of the rule. That statement prevents someone from cutting the majority of the OE steel fender back to the end of the adjacent bodywork and then overlaying a complete replacement fender (of a lighter material). You can't cut material away in excess of that required for tire clearance.


mrazny
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:462


--
20 Jan 2012 10:49 AM

They obviously go on because they didn't feel that the sentence alone was enough. Are they expecting you to go through the full motion potential of a typical autocross course? So we need to simulate a Nationals style sweeper to get full expected body roll to test the extreme of fender material that's an issue?

One, there's enforcement of the rule. Two, there's the sportsmanship of the rule. They went on the specify that it can never be inboard of the hub for a reason. Why include that unless some car felt justified in removing material up to that plane. I'd think that's more than should be necessary for basically any car, but apparently someone made a case at some point that they put in this extra layer to the language.

And an easy aspect that can be abused to circumvent the rules comes from the ride height change allowances. The car *can* be set lower, so destroy fenders up to allowed for lower than race-day specifications, then raise to where you want the car.

Or, like reasonable sportsmen, we have a target tire width, and we modify to avoid issues. Locally, I'd rather see our independent club make sure there will be no tire clearance issues before harping on too much material was removed to do so.

Steve Hoelscher
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:831


--
20 Jan 2012 11:09 AM
mrazny wrote:

They obviously go on because they didn't feel that the sentence alone was enough. Are they expecting you to go through the full motion potential of a typical autocross course? So we need to simulate a Nationals style sweeper to get full expected body roll to test the extreme of fender material that's an issue?

One, there's enforcement of the rule. Two, there's the sportsmanship of the rule. They went on the specify that it can never be inboard of the hub for a reason. Why include that unless some car felt justified in removing material up to that plane. I'd think that's more than should be necessary for basically any car, but apparently someone made a case at some point that they put in this extra layer to the language.

And an easy aspect that can be abused to circumvent the rules comes from the ride height change allowances. The car *can* be set lower, so destroy fenders up to allowed for lower than race-day specifications, then raise to where you want the car.

Or, like reasonable sportsmen, we have a target tire width, and we modify to avoid issues. Locally, I'd rather see our independent club make sure there will be no tire clearance issues before harping on too much material was removed to do so.

The wording that restricts flaring inboard of the hub is there because somebody had the idea of flaring the inner fender panel to clear a very big tire. Clearly the SEB did not intend for that to be part of the fender flare allowance.

Demonstration of tire clearance is pretty easy. Jack the car up, remove the spring and run the suspension through its range of motion. And there is nothing preventing you from using the largest wheel and tire you want to support cutting the maximum material off the OE fender.

Marshall Grice
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:303


--
20 Jan 2012 11:19 AM
mrazny wrote:

They obviously go on because they didn't feel that the sentence alone was enough. Are they expecting you to go through the full motion potential of a typical autocross course? So we need to simulate a Nationals style sweeper to get full expected body roll to test the extreme of fender material that's an issue?

One, there's enforcement of the rule. Two, there's the sportsmanship of the rule. They went on the specify that it can never be inboard of the hub for a reason. Why include that unless some car felt justified in removing material up to that plane. I'd think that's more than should be necessary for basically any car, but apparently someone made a case at some point that they put in this extra layer to the language.

And an easy aspect that can be abused to circumvent the rules comes from the ride height change allowances. The car *can* be set lower, so destroy fenders up to allowed for lower than race-day specifications, then raise to where you want the car.

Or, like reasonable sportsmen, we have a target tire width, and we modify to avoid issues. Locally, I'd rather see our independent club make sure there will be no tire clearance issues before harping on too much material was removed to do so.

it's very easy to remove the spring and move the wheel/tire through its entire range of travel and steering. no need to trial and error tire fitment on course. Also very easy to do in a protest tent in a parking lot.

Marshall Grice
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:303


--
20 Jan 2012 11:32 AM
madlib wrote:

I still don't agree with you. For example, SP rules allow cross-drilled rotors. The rule does not prevent someone from drilling more holes into the surface. It's been done in ST...found legal until they rewrote the rules to prevent it from happening again.

SP also allows heatshields. What are the design constraints? How many bends can it have? What material can it be made of? The rule doesn't say I can add another bend to a heatshield, so you are saying I'm not allowed to modify it. And if I do, it is no longer a heatshield.

You're stifling my creativity (haha).

I'm not sure what the ST rules have to do with SP, but yes you are allowed to drill all the holes in the rotors that you want. You can not however use the allowance to drill holes to reduce the thickness of your rotors (but i designed the holes to only go half way through...over the entire surface of the rotor), or reduce the diameter (I drilled holes through the entire outer 2" of my rotor).

the design constraint on heatshields is you have to demonstrate that they are "shielding" heat. so bend away, make them out of what ever material you want, but don't cut a hole in your hood and put a scoop over it and claim that your "heat shield is designed that way". The heatshield allowance doesn't allow you to cut holes in things, even though you can use any heatshield you want.

another example of what you can't do. you're allowed to use "any oil pan". it doesn't mean you can install a full aerodynamic undertray on your car that is attached to the oil pan and claim you "designed your oil pan that way".

MattP
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:350


--
20 Jan 2012 11:47 AM
Can your heat shield have a hole in it? It doesn't say you can...

Can your alternate seat have holes in it? It doesn't say you can...

Can your strut bar have holes in it? It doesn't say you can...

Can your alternate shift knob have holes in it? It doesn't say you can...
Marshall Grice
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:303


--
20 Jan 2012 11:48 AM
Oh I got another one!

Since fender flares are *unlimited* I'm going to put a supercharger in my fender flares!

hahah i crack me up.
Marshall Grice
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:303


--
20 Jan 2012 11:55 AM
MattP wrote:Can your heat shield have a hole in it? It doesn't say you can...Can your alternate seat have holes in it? It doesn't say you can...Can your strut bar have holes in it? It doesn't say you can...Can your alternate shift knob have holes in it? It doesn't say you can...

Indeed they can.

none of the rules you listed begin with "may be modified for tire clearance".

the allowance to add flares is not in it's own stand alone section of the rules. If it were I would be in agreement 100% that you could do whatever you want with fender flares, but its not. it's in a rule that says you may only do these things for tire clearance. The holes in the top of the fender flare in question, I guarantee you, are not there for tire clearance and thus not legal under 15.2.A.

i'll gladly accept those holes as legal if i see that a tire (any tire) can't clear the flares at those points.

You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 6 << < 12345 > >>


G-Loc Button Vorshlag 88x31 Button
Sunoco 88x31 Button
SPS 88x31 Button Woodhouse Motorsports

Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank



Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner