ST_ aero is gone

[Robert]

ST car at nat2010-10-10--J1.jpg

I stole this from another forum. I think it shows where body kits were headed in ST* and why the changes were needed.

[autoxmax]

...I just do not like the idea of now possibly getting protested for having holes in my trunk as weight savings from removing the wing for scca specific events.

Equipe Rapide classing too. Same car classing rules apply for ER the last I read!

If someone protested small mounting holes as a "weight savings" intention, I would imagine the protest wouldn't stand up past the filing & the protest commitee would keep the protesters filing money.

As Robert stated, "Swiss Cheese" is a whole different matter.

As a side note, there was a guy in STX at Nationals that did the "swiss cheese" modification to his bumper covers. Most folks had no "sense of humor" about the mod either! (Like it saved him any real wieght)

LOL! Robert found the photo!

[altiain]

If it was the rear bumper, I doubt it was for weight savings. On most cars the rear bumper cover is like a large air brake (especially when - like me - your aftermarket exhaust takes up about 1/4 of the space of the OEM one). Cut holes in it or remove it altogether and you've removed a big source of drag.

[goofygrin]

just make sure you use a rough drill bit and call it "rust" They certainly can't protest your for having a rusty car can they?

[nomadtrash]

I own a wind tunnel and am available to test your significant aerodynamic function, or lack thereof. Maybe I should submit a proposal for a test procedure to the SCCA. It would allow a competitor to test and submit evidence that their aero had no significant aerodynamic function. I'm sure I could test each car for less than the $5k benchmark set by this forum.

[nomadtrash]

We could set the "significant" value at an arbitrary figure such as 200 lbs of downforce at 35 mph.

[762]

I'm sure I could test each car for less than the $5k benchmark set by this forum.

I did not mean to set that as benchmark. It was more of just an arbitrary value to define what could be a prohibitive cost.

[Robert]

I find it odd that the intent of the aero rule comes up often in ST* talk but SP uses the same terms but it never comes up for the spoilers in SP. Do we really belive that the splitters/spoilers in SP are non-functional?

From the SP rules

"I. Spoilers/splitters and cosmetic trim pieces are permitted. Side skirts
may not be used. Spoilers/splitters must comply with the following
subsections. The intent of this allowance is to accommodate commonly
available appearance kits, and replicas thereof, which have no
significant aerodynamic function at Solo speeds."

[Davidss]

As a side note, there was a guy in STX at Nationals that did the "swiss cheese" modification to his bumper covers. Most folks had no "sense of humor" about the mod either! (Like it saved him any real wieght)

The swiss cheese bumper was 6 pounds lighter.

[Steve E]

Agreed. As someone who has been in STS (formerly STS2) since its first year as a supplemental class I am glad it is gone. The interpretations of the body kit allowance had become obscenely tortured and many running wings admitted that they had documented the effects at solo speeds. They had clearly gone far beyond the orginal intent of the rule. On Glenn's car at Nationals you could only open the trunk about 8 to 10 inches.

Glad its gone and it is a classic example of how member comment works.

Steve E

[OZMDD]

just realized, this thread should probably move to autox tech, not events. Just sayin...