I am looking for a good source for high quality wing uprights on an E36 M3. Superior build quality and adjustability are obviously the keys here. Any suggestions on how to properly install/mount them is appreciated as well. The uprights will be used for a Crawford rear wing.

Thanks,
Scott

Crawford will probably sell you some for about $700. :)

I'm not really aware of a "source" for anything like this. For the most part, I think folks are fabricating these themselves or buying from the wing manufacturer when dealing with the Crawfords/Pennons of the world...particularly if trying to take advantage of the rules and mount the wing exactly at the roof height. RRT is working on a mount for our wing right now that will hopefully tie into the rear frame rails (not legal in Prepared as it requires slotting the trunk a bit) and be made of aero tubing.

Is this for preapred or mod class?

Any race fabrication shop should be able to make the standard one that bolt to the trunk, its just a flat rectnagle and a vertical post that bolts to the wing, with either slots, holes, or turnbuckles.

The setup i'm working on for Watts car is not your ordinary setup, and while i have heard of guys on the west coast with active wings, they are 100% illegal. So the next step down is going direct to the chassis. It can be seen on thier car which will be raced and displayed at ofest.

Scott, If you want some details on getting a set made, or getting ones premade, please PM me. Thanks

Is this for preapred or mod class?

Prepared class.


If you want some details on getting a set made, or getting ones premade, please PM me. Thanks

I will be in touch on the wing as well as the Ohlins.

Thanks,
Scott

Great!

I was just looking over some emails and saw i never got another response, sp let me know about the ohlins as well.

Thanks,
Steve

Nice, Scott... you don't mess around do ya? Gonna have Active build you a motor too? ;)

Nice, Scott... you don't mess around do ya? Gonna have Active build you a motor too? ;)


Make sure you get him borescoped....


:lol :redspot :alright

Nice, Scott... you don't mess around do ya? Gonna have Active build you a motor too? ;)

Nope, don't care to have that level of scrutiny following me around. :nono Most likely, Bavarian Machine or Sunbelt, but trust me, it will be 100% legal. I honestly get more enjoyment out of tuning the car (suspension, aeros, weight, etc.) vs. spending my child's education on building an engine to the limit and rebuilding it every other year chasing issues. Now, if Randy's starts to beat me only because of his raw power on the straights, I may have to sell the kids!! :)

Make sure you get him borescoped....


:lol :redspot :alright

Looks like you are already borescoping yourself in your photo... I will pass on your offer, thanks though. :fingerboi

Looks like you are already borescoping yourself in your photo... I will pass on your offer, thanks though. :fingerboi

LOL....you are too easy...

I'd love to get back on topic. Did my duty to search the forum for some answers concering the original topic and found this.
This was almost complete.

Does anyone have any pics of their installation? I've got a single element 60 inch wing that is adjustable.
I'm definitely not calling Crawford for $700 mounts! So, if you guys have any help of *how to*, I'd really appreciate the help.

Bryan, if you're reading...did RRT ever come up with the mounting system you were talking about? If so, do you know the cost?

Oh yeah, what are the legal limits of pushing the wing back? Is it possible to get the leading edge back to the end of the bumper? Is that even advisable?

Thanks,

Ken Arutunian

You can't afford the mounts I made for watts car ;) haha j/k

I have an extensive gallery of high def photos of watts wing. It will require quite a bit of labor.

Wing can go back as far as you want, but can't be above the roof.

Only issue about going far back is how you design the structure holding it. If the leverage becomes to great it'll probably rip the mounts out, unless you make a more complex mount that is made of carbon and mated to the chassis.

Here is the wing before Bassen did his magic on the trunk. I used 6 dzus fasteners to hold down the trunk skin (under 2lbs).

http://gallery.underclockers.net/albums/Pre-ofest/P9100001.sized.jpg


Final Product at ofest:

http://gallery.underclockers.net/albums/Pre-ofest/IMG_0205_001.jpg

And some of my Photochop skills, transparent trunk lid :)

http://gallery.underclockers.net/albums/Pre-ofest/SeeThrutrunk.sized.jpg

Here you can see how the mounts fasten to the frame rails (all chromoly by the way, the entire assembly weighs only a couple lbs, and saved over 15lbs from the previous mashaw carbon ltw trunk/wing setup)

http://gallery.underclockers.net/albums/Pre-ofest/P9070006.sized.jpg

Here's a simpler, more affordbale/quicker solution, however you need a structural trunk to handle the loads (note this is ustcc so no rules).

http://www.mpactmotorsports.com/albums/ulaps805/ULaps_8_05_029.sized.jpg

http://www.mpactmotorsports.com/albums/ustcc_4/IMG_0425.sized.jpg

And for those that want the best, here are some pricey carbon solution :)

http://gallery.underclockers.net/albums/Pre-ofest/cfwing2.jpg
http://gallery.underclockers.net/albums/Pre-ofest/cfwing3.jpg
http://gallery.underclockers.net/albums/Pre-ofest/cfwing4.jpg

Steve,

Thanks for posting up some pics. Yeah, I'd say your design is too pricey for my needs.
Of those options...I like the MPact design. I've got plates very similar to that, they're just not angled back as much and they don't have a base. So, at least I have an idea of what to do.

Thanks,

Ken

Couple issues you might run into that you should watch out for.
1. Side to Side movement of wing assemnly.
2. People like to push by the wing, make sure its mounted solid.
3. Remember, the wing is going to have quite a bit of force on it at speed, so make sure proper fasteners are used. I've seen a couple wings fly off at some events...
4. Make sure the trunk has structure to it.
5. Make sure it is under the roofline :)

As far as the purpose of the design i did on watts car...it allowed for a big weight drop, and not worry about the trunk having to carry the loads from the wing. Now all the force is directed right to the chassis. If I had more materials I would make the end plates much larger. Other than that, we picked up a ocuple MPH on the straight compared to the LTW wing, and increased DF, with reduced drag from the previous setup. Just overall much more efficient, including 15lbs+ of straight weight loss.

If possible try to make it easily adjustable. Thye way i did watts with adj turnbuckles was adjustable by hand in about 1 second fairly accurately, since it was fine thread and there was a through hole to measure the # of turns. So pit real quick, adjust, and go until it feels right (essentially).

You can't afford the mounts I made for watts car ;) haha j/k

I have an extensive gallery of high def photos of watts wing. It will require quite a bit of labor.

Wing can go back as far as you want, but can't be above the roof.

Only issue about going far back is how you design the structure holding it. If the leverage becomes to great it'll probably rip the mounts out, unless you make a more complex mount that is made of carbon and mated to the chassis.


Several Tech/Rules people have told me over the years that a wing may not extend more than one inch beyond the rear bumper, so I've always kept mine within the limits I was told. Might be a good idea for folks to pursue a Rules Clarification prior to taking the wing back as far as they want to go to save potential expense of buying/building a part that isn't permitted in their class. If there is some change in the interpretation of the rulebook concerning wings, I'll jump right on moving mine rearward to take advantage of the improved downforce with lower drag numbers too!

Mike, just make sure the wing stays on ;) I remember I saw yours take flight at RA this past season, what exactly happened, fastener just broke off?

Note: Mike could you delete the picture links in your qoute, just to save peoples bandwith, thanks.

Yea, i know its usually "if it does not say you can, you cant," but they specify one dimension and not the other, so it would seem its not a defining limitation.

I would like to see more multiple element wings out there...for the benefit they for only a couple hundred bucks more, seems like an easy decision with the money be spent these days.

Several Tech/Rules people have told me over the years that a wing may not extend more than one inch beyond the rear bumper, so I've always kept mine within the limits I was told. Might be a good idea for folks to pursue a Rules Clarification prior to taking the wing back as far as they want to go to save potential expense of buying/building a part that isn't permitted in their class. If there is some change in the interpretation of the rulebook concerning wings, I'll jump right on moving mine rearward to take advantage of the improved downforce with lower drag numbers too!

From STOCK class rule 7.E.:
"Spoilers and splitters are free providing they do not exceed maximum
body width and do not exceed the factory body length by more than one
inch."

A splitter is later defined:
"Splitter – An aerodynamic piece which is parallel to the
ground and attaches to the bottom of the front bumper
cover or airdam."

And a spoiler is later defined:
Spoiler – The aerodynamic piece that is usually attached
to the rear decklid. Any piece off the front of the car that is
intended to produce aerodynamic benefit is considered a
spoiler.

Ok, so there seems to be a limit to the extension of a spoiler or splitter beyond 1 inch from the maximum extension of the bumper in STOCK class.

Wings are then mentioned in STOCK class here:
"Wings are restricted to factory-original or factory-optional
configurations for the year, chassis and model, or aftermarket
products that exactly duplicate either the original or optional
factory units. Allowable aftermarket parts must not alter the
shape, height or adjustability of the wing. Wings provide
aerodynamic effect by use of an airfoil section."

Perhaps it DOES need to be clarified whether a wing is ALSO a spoiler as defined by the rules for STOCK class.

Now, from PREPARED class rule 7.B.:
"Spoilers and wings are free providing they do not exceed maximum
body width and are no higher than the roofline."

In NO way could that ever be interpreted to limit the wing (or the spoiler) to a point no further than 1 inch beyond the rear bumper. There's no need for a clarification for something that is perfectly clear. Free means free...there's no limit on shape, number, orientation or location. The ONLY limitations listed for PREPARED (and thus MOD and SUPERMOD) wings is on width and height. If it doesn't say you can, you can't...in this case it says you can with the word "free".

The 1" rule is for STOCK only, and then arguably only for spoilers and not wings. So, STOCK folks may need to seek a clarification, but they are already limited to "factory configuration" wings in stock anyway, likely making it a moot point.

I read the wing/aero rules multiple times before we committed to the setup that Steve/RRT built for our car and always thought they were pretty clear about making wings free, save for height and width. Now, obviously our wing setup isn't PREPARED legal since it involves replacement and slotting of the rear trunk lid, which is only legal in MOD.

I would like to see more multiple element wings out there...for the benefit they for only a couple hundred bucks more, seems like an easy decision with the money be spent these days.

Steve, find me a dual element setup for only a couple hundred more than we paid for our current wing and I'll get my checkbook out. :D

Done and Done. Contact me privately for details.

But we all know your car only needs more horsepower, right? ;)

As far as the rules go, I think Bryan pretty much is spot on, and there is no counter-argument needed.

Steve, find me a dual element setup for only a couple hundred more than we paid for our current wing and I'll get my checkbook out. :D

Like this?

http://www.aprperformance.com/images/products/AS-105552.jpg

$340 at http://www.aprperformance.com/proddesc.php?catID=1&subcatID=7&productcategoryID=20

Too heavy and a 55" wing would probably look silly on our wider car. It's certainly a bargain price, but I'm just left wondering whether the aerofoil profiles are effective or not since it comes from a site specializing in sales to the drift and street crowd. Is it the wing you're running? Have you had a chance to test it against anything else?

I'd want something in carbon, 65"+ wide, and with a proven aerofoil design before I'll pull off the setup we're running right now.

I am looking for a good source for high quality wing uprights on an E36 M3. Superior build quality and adjustability are obviously the keys here. Any suggestions on how to properly install/mount them is appreciated as well. The uprights will be used for a Crawford rear wing.

Thanks,
Scott

Pennon Composites can hook you up for ~300, as I recall.

I'd rather chose a wing that has been purpose designed, from the wings i've seen from APR, its pretty generic stuff that is mostly for looks.

Bryan, your wing LIST price is $800, so a deal for one of those would be $500. Add Wicker Bill and end plate cost. I know of Dual element wings that won't be max length, but they'll still be more effective with two element (48-52" i believe). Might look a little funny, but look at the cars above and you'll see what I am talking about.

Bryan, I actually like the element you have, it could be a bit wider, and if there was more money/time I wanted to make a much more complex end plate design that was larger and attached to the body :) Hopefully you will see that design on another car soon though ;)

Mike, just make sure the wing stays on ;) I remember I saw yours take flight at RA this past season, what exactly happened, fastener just broke off?

Note: Mike could you delete the picture links in your qoute, just to save peoples bandwith, thanks.

Yea, i know its usually "if it does not say you can, you cant," but they specify one dimension and not the other, so it would seem its not a defining limitation.

I would like to see more multiple element wings out there...for the benefit they for only a couple hundred bucks more, seems like an easy decision with the money be spent these days.

The factory supplied brackets failed and the element came off in grand fashion. Anyone disputing the effectiveness of a rear wing at our speeds needs to watch Scott Riley's film of when mine came off at Road Atlanta.

I am certainly NOT arguing about the rules concerning wings, but only stating what I have been told by Tech/Rules people in the past.... no higher than the roofline, no wider than the body work, and extending no farther back than one inch beyond the bumper....otherwise "free". If this is incorrect, it came directly from staffers, so indeed an official Rules Clarification would be the proper way to address the issue. I really HOPE I can alter my wing to extend farther backward away from the bodywork, so I'm all for it! In fact, once the new staff is in place I'll ask for the clarification myself. :)

I am certainly NOT arguing about the rules concerning wings, but only stating what I have been told by Tech/Rules people in the past.... no higher than the roofline, no wider than the body work, and extending no farther back than one inch beyond the bumper....otherwise "free". If this is incorrect, it came directly from staffers, so indeed an official Rules Clarification would be the proper way to address the issue.

It seems the staffers simply didn't take time to read the rulebook before sharing their opinion. There's nothing to be clarified as the rule reads. No amount of interpretation could possibly determine that the wing is limited to 1" behind the rear bumper in Prep/Mod...it would take a rule change.

I'm not even sure our wing extends beyond 1" from the bumper anyway since there was never a need to measure.

The factory supplied brackets failed and the element came off in grand fashion. Anyone disputing the effectiveness of a rear wing at our speeds needs to watch Scott Riley's film of when mine came off at Road Atlanta.

Is that one of those APR deals?

You should get one of the GT racing high downforce wings and feel the difference, i bet you would notice a decent amount of change (might need more front df b/c it might get some cantilever action).

As far as the rules...no need to do anything. Its pretty obvious what the rules mean. If you think there needs to be a clarification, then you should also make the 500 clarifications on the items that are not mentioned but implied not legal...

Hey Steve,
Thanks so much for helping with some areas of concern for the rear wing install.
I'm thinking that I will have aluminum plates with a welded base and then bolted to the factory trunk lid. That ought to hold it! Oh yeah, it will definitely be adjustable!

I would like to clarify an issue being discussed about the wing extending back beyond the rear bumper. It sounds like it's favorable to extend the wing back as far as possible without creating mounting concerns, right? If so, what is a good limit to stick to with regards to the extension beyond the bumper?

One other question, if purchasing a fixed splitter for the front, what would be the optimal length for an all around splitter?

Thanks again for your help.

Ken Arutunian

About 3" exposed in front of the factory lip should be sufficient. Have it go all the way back to where the rules say it can. So watch out it does not go too wide as it has to conform to the rules with body width.

As far as how far back the wing should be, thats really up to the person mounting it. It won't make a huge amount of difference b/c unless you have some way of keeping the air attached and direct toward the wing, it would need to be higher then the roofline. You could run into a situation where the wing is placed in a highly disturbed air flow path, and that could have some interesting results.

Pretty much, just stick with having it overhang a little bit...just make it look good, haha

Stock trunk lid? So I guess you are not looking to have a light car ;)

About 3" exposed in front of the factory lip should be sufficient. Have it go all the way back to where the rules say it can. So watch out it does not go too wide as it has to conform to the rules with body width.

As far as how far back the wing should be, thats really up to the person mounting it. It won't make a huge amount of difference b/c unless you have some way of keeping the air attached and direct toward the wing, it would need to be higher then the roofline. You could run into a situation where the wing is placed in a highly disturbed air flow path, and that could have some interesting results.

Pretty much, just stick with having it overhang a little bit...just make it look good, haha

Stock trunk lid? So I guess you are not looking to have a light car ;)

LOL,

Yeah, I'm racing a sled for '06:cool I am to club racing like the Jamaican National Sled team is to the Winter Olympics.:D I don't have a snowballs chance of doing anything in '06...but I'm gonna try to have some fun dawg gonnit!!!

My new race team name is gonna be "The Ghetto Machine" or "Low Rider":redspot I love the Low Rider theme...so maybe that's it. I told you I was trailer park racing, didn't I????? LOL

Ken Arutunian

http://www.bryanwatts.com/pics/m3sig.jpg
.

Bryan.. did you guys ever sell your old spoiler setup?

Ken - We have a structural composite trunk lid we can possibly sell you to lose some weight and still be able to support that wing...the MASHAW PTG wing is still attached to it at this point, but we can probably sell that seperately to a Prepared class guy.

Bryan.. did you guys ever sell your old spoiler setup?

We still have the spoiler, it's attached to the trunk lid I just mentioned to Ken. If you want it and Ken wants the trunk, perhaps we can seperate and sell.

We still have the spoiler, it's attached to the trunk lid I just mentioned to Ken. If you want it and Ken wants the trunk, perhaps we can seperate and sell.

Bryan,
Cool, tell me what you want for the lid. Feel free to send me a PM.

Ken

Bryan,
Cool, tell me what you want for the lid. Feel free to send me a PM.

Ken

As such... if you want to split the wing off of it.. lemme know how much you want for the wing (Ken or Bryan)

I don't handle the prices, so I'll get back to ya'll in a bit by PM.

As such... if you want to split the wing off of it.. lemme know how much you want for the wing (Ken or Bryan)

Eric, sounds like we might be able to help one another out! Awesome.

Ken

Eric, sounds like we might be able to help one another out! Awesome.

Ken

Assuming Bryan knows we are POOR .. any discount for running AWatts Company stickers? :stickoutt :devillook :(

I don't handle the prices, so I'll get back to ya'll in a bit by PM.

Hey Bryan, be sure to tell your dad that this is for the charitable "Low Rider" foundation. Tax deductable and all! I promise!!!:D

Ken

Haha, well people have police car themes, and company themes, I think Ken...you need the trailer park theme. Get some nc airbrush work by the local tattoo artist...thatd be hot.

Have a couple panels painted nice, but bullet holes in them. Then have some panels not painted at all, just primer...sweeeT!

Haha, well people have police car themes, and company themes, I think Ken...you need the trailer park theme. Get some nc airbrush work by the local tattoo artist...thatd be hot.
Have a couple panels painted nice, but bullet holes in them. Then have some panels not painted at all, just primer...sweeeT!

:lol
How'd you know what I was planning? Seriously, that would be SWEEET! "Domination by Intimidation"! I'll shoot ya if you don't let me by!

Ken

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that I just got a deal on some 18" spinners!!!!

Wooo Woo

Ken

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that I just got a deal on some 18" spinners!!!!

Wooo Woo

Ken

18s?! psssh. Are you sure you didnt mean to type 28" spinnarz? :confused

18s?! psssh. Are you sure you didnt mean to type 28" spinnarz? :confused

Naw, d'em ones were too heavy. My jack is only rated for 1 ton:mad

Ken

Nice, Scott... you don't mess around do ya? Gonna have Active build you a motor too? ;)

:lol

It seems the staffers simply didn't take time to read the rulebook before sharing their opinion. There's nothing to be clarified as the rule reads. No amount of interpretation could possibly determine that the wing is limited to 1" behind the rear bumper in Prep/Mod...it would take a rule change.

I'm not even sure our wing extends beyond 1" from the bumper anyway since there was never a need to measure.


Double-checked with some of my original sources tonight...
1" is the rule according to all those polled to date.
The consensus is that the word "free" refers to single plane-dual plane-triple plane, shape, material, etc, but NOT how high, wide, or how far it extends beyond the rear of the car since those issues were already clearly covered earlier in the book. Taking it beyond those limits would place the car in Super Mod...which may be a lot larger class than many folks want to admit.

I guess that might be why so many folks were looking at my wing so closely when I first put it on the car... because it looks like it pushes those boundaries! We were very careful to measure height, width, and rear extension when we developed the risers.

I think the clarification will come out like I've been told, but we'll have to wait and see how things shake out with the new administration. I would expect several rules to be cleared-up in the upcoming months with the new Chairman being so prominent in the CAAS and I look forward to eliminating theoretical interpretations from resulting in heated discussions. :)

Is that one of those APR deals?

You should get one of the GT racing high downforce wings and feel the difference, i bet you would notice a decent amount of change (might need more front df b/c it might get some cantilever action).

As far as the rules...no need to do anything. Its pretty obvious what the rules mean. If you think there needs to be a clarification, then you should also make the 500 clarifications on the items that are not mentioned but implied not legal...

Might try one some day if I find a really good deal on one or find something wrong with my wing's effectiveness.

I totally agree that there are MANY things that need to be clarified. I've been told that some of the rules were ambiguous by design, but I also expect that to change as BMW CCA CR continues to grow. I look forward to clarity and elimination of the controversy that the varying interpretations of the existing rulebook causes. :)

Personally, Unless a car is a factory prepared (i.e. ptg, etc) nothing else should need to go into Super mod.

Modified class is just that, Modified. You should be able to do pretty much anything. Regardless of if there are 100 rules or 5 rules, money will still buy the speed. So why limit it to things that just could potentially cost people more money (to conform to rules).

I think its pretty dumb that some stuff is ruled out of MOd just because it does not say you can do it. Takes all the fun out of being in a modified class. Otherwise, spend the money and be competitive in prepared. Just does not make sense!

The dimensional restrictions are commonplace in pro-racing and it's mostly to do with safety issues. Pointy things that stick out of cars are potentially dangerous.

That's the basis for a lot of the restrictions, while I recognize that some cars which dominated were tagged with restrictions to keep them from being so dominant. Porsches over the years come to mind as notable examples.

Blah, it would cost no harm.

Should be anything goes other than engine Displacement :)

Blah, it would cost no harm.

Should be anything goes other than engine Displacement :)

So, what's wrong with you jumping right in to Super Mod then?
You can spend the mega dollars and have the Carbon brakes, flywheel, driveshaft, sequential shifter, belly pan, diffuser, and parts made from unobtainium and compete with everyone else that wants to do the same thing. It's just the next level and if you want to play that way, play to your heart's content with others willing to spend 6 figures on their hobby horse that gets out of the stable 8-12 times each year.

Before you "blah" it, you should do some research and find similar (or even exact) limitations are commonplace and stuff that sticks out IS an issue for safety. That's one reason why you won't find knockoff hubs and RollsRoyce flying ladies and leaping Jaguars on the hoods.

Formula cars are one big point...atleast these cars have tintops. No more dangerous than a big splitter, or winglet, or widebody.

So, what's wrong with you jumping right in to Super Mod then?
You can spend the mega dollars and have the Carbon brakes, flywheel, driveshaft, sequential shifter, belly pan, diffuser, and parts made from unobtainium and compete with everyone else that wants to do the same thing. It's just the next level and if you want to play that way, play to your heart's content with others willing to spend 6 figures on their hobby horse that gets out of the stable 8-12 times each year.

Thats precisely why I am going to develop a sports racer! I don't have the money to fully develop an E46 M3, and for significantly less money I can turn faster lap times, run 2-3 times more events, and have a much less overall season/racing cost (less Fuel/cheaper tires, etc).

Most of the consistent Mod winners have easily spent upto and over 100k. Other than the displacement limitation, the other stuff is just configuration of the modifications, as most are just limited, and not eliminated.

At some point i'd like to build a SM E30 though...its just a fun project.

Forumula cars are frangible ... they're designed to break on nearly any contact. Everything from aero pieces to suspension comes off these cars with the lightest touch. Open wheel racing is not really comparable for any number of reasons. If you compare apples to apples, you'll see how PCA, SCCA and others do it is very, very similar to BMW CCA limitations.

Yes yes...I know, i was making a point.

I don't see it being any safer (other than maybe walking around the paddock). It's going to break off if it makes contact with another car/wall anyways. If you want to be careful and save money, you want to keep everything within the outer edges, so if you contact something lightly it won't break everything off, but you can't be that sensitive, its an expensive sport. Looking at the professional FIA and other international series, almost all have winglets, splitters, wings, and flares exposed with edges.

Thats precisely why I am going to develop a sports racer! I don't have the money to fully develop an E46 M3, and for significantly less money I can turn faster lap times, run 2-3 times more events, and have a much less overall season/racing cost (less Fuel/cheaper tires, etc).

Most of the consistent Mod winners have easily spent upto and over 100k. Other than the displacement limitation, the other stuff is just configuration of the modifications, as most are just limited, and not eliminated.

At some point i'd like to build a SM E30 though...its just a fun project.

Wow!!!!!!!!!
$100K!
Really? I never dreamed there was so much money being spent on the club cars out there. That's amazing!
Makes me feel REALLY great to be remotely competitive in my e30 for MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less!
I can see how buying a $60k new e46 M3 and then starting on the build could get ultra expensive, but to date I have not seen very many of them winning bunches of races in Mod, so I had no idea that much money was being spent on the other racecars. It really doesn't take anywhere near half the money you've listed to build a fairly competitive car from my experience, but then some folks think my machine is just twisting and flexing along on a Sunday drive.:)

I agree with your concept. Light, big tires, solid motor...its a very good equation.

However, this is a hobby for almost everyone (drivers anyways, professional business's are doing all the R&D of products/setups) and if they want to spend the money, who's to stop them. Work hard ya play hard.

I'm interested to see if we can get some national races together where all the big dawgs come and race. It'd be nice to do a direct comparison.

If we're talking E30's, 50k builds a pretty nice CM car. If we're talking E36, 75k builds a top level CM, if you are a bit crazy its a bit more. E46 takes about 100k to do an S54, widebody, higher end suspension, custom this and that, the list can go on forever...it all depends on what you want. Building something to race and building something to be consistent, reliable, and look good is another. Hell the new "bullet proof" S54's are over 35k-50k alone! Suspension system at $10k, brakes at $5k, cage/chassis at 7-10k, wheels/tires at 10-12k, instrumentation, data acq, safety equipment, body components, lexan, etc etc etc. Pretty easy to spend a lot if its built to high standards to be clean, consistent, reliable, fast and look good.

YES of course you can win with less expensive components, thats why its club racing, and amatuer level. Thats why this is so much fun! The fact that driver skill and a simple concept car (like yours Mike) can be very competitive is awesome! But some people have money to spend and have fun, so whatever floats thier boat.

And now if we compare to PCA guys...100k to the faster guys is a season ;) And if we look to ferrari guys, 100k is a couple weekends lol. Its all about the people and what makes them happy.
Personally, if i'm going to do something, i'm going to plan the project so whatever class/series its competing in, it'll be of the utmost quality possible, with the best products affordable. Fortunately, I enjoy developing parts, so the cost is usually just time and materials.

P.S. Noone buys new cars to base thier racecars off of...you know better than that :) You can get a flooded e46 m3 for $15k, and sell a lot of parts to get some cash back.

Double-checked with some of my original sources tonight...
1" is the rule according to all those polled to date.
The consensus is that the word "free" refers to single plane-dual plane-triple plane, shape, material, etc, but NOT how high, wide, or how far it extends beyond the rear of the car since those issues were already clearly covered earlier in the book.

Will you please refer those who were poled to the definition of the word "free" in Webster's dictionary? The rules BUILD upon themselves from Stock to Mod. If something is limited in Stock and then declared FREE in Prepared, it's FREE save for the limitations put on it in the Prepared and Mod rules...the word FREE limits it from any previous restrictions. Would you care to share your sources so that I can explain to them the definition of the word free?

A clarification isn't the appropriate response for something that is a rule change from the way the rules are currently worded.

I don't even know whether our wing is more than 1" behind the bumper, but this is just crazy. I guess I might be forced to glue a piece of sheet metal to our current bumper and call it an extension to the bumper so that we'll be in compliance to the potential "clarification". :rolleyes

Seriously Mike, since you seem to know who to talk to, who should I submit my thoughts to on this? I never had any luck with the website clarification submissions in the past and don't whether that will work at this point while we are switching to a new chairman.

Yes, you're right. Forget F1 and the other open wheel series. Yes, the Audi R8s had small aerodynamic aids, but if you've ever been up close and personal to these cars, you'll see that these pieces don't protrude much from the body work. They are relatively tight to the bodywork. Stuff that hangs out generally creates too much drag relative to the aero benefit. That's a broad generalization, but you get the point.

Have you see any of the DTM cars in the last 5 years, haha, winglets galore. How about many of the btcc/etcc/supertourer/v8/etc cars. Mpact's wing shows how the USTCC (i'm sure you've heard of it) does not have the "very common" rule you speak of.

Once you are in an accident EVERYTHING becomes dangerous, no matter if it started sharp or not, its most likely going to be able to injure the driver or someone else.

I've designed Crush Zones before, they are built into any prupose built car, even including amatuer SCCA sports racers.

However they are specifically for direct frontal impact to dissipate energy...and they work very well!
FSAE is one of the places new crush zone designs is being tested, and with teams sponsored by Audi Motorpsort, Ford/GM/Chevy/Etc and a lot of other big manufacturers, some "crazy" designs have quickly made it from a student design competition to professional racecars.

For one of the most advanced series in regards to safety, they sure have a lot of pointy object :)

http://www.imca-slotracing.com/images/05DTM-5.jpg

I agree with your concept. Light, big tires, solid motor...its a very good equation.

However, this is a hobby for almost everyone (drivers anyways, professional business's are doing all the R&D of products/setups) and if they want to spend the money, who's to stop them. Work hard ya play hard.

I'm interested to see if we can get some national races together where all the big dawgs come and race. It'd be nice to do a direct comparison.

If we're talking E30's, 50k builds a pretty nice CM car. If we're talking E36, 75k builds a top level CM, if you are a bit crazy its a bit more. E46 takes about 100k to do an S54, widebody, higher end suspension, custom this and that, the list cna go on forever...it all depends on what you want. Building something to race and building something to be consistent, reliable, and look good is another. Hell the new "bullet proof" S54's are over 35k alone! Suspension system at $10k, brakes at $5k, cage/chassis at 7-10k, wheels/tires at 10-12k, instrumentation, data acq, safety equipment, body components, lexan, etc etc etc. Pretty easy to spend a lot if its built to high standards to be clean, consistent, reliable, fast and look good.

YES of course you can win with less expensive components, thats why its club racing, and amatuer level. Thats why this is so much fun! The fact that driver skill and a simple concept car (like yours Mike) can be very competitive is awesome! But some people have money to spend and have fun, so whatever floats thier boat.


Why are you saying it costs $25k more to build an e36 when the car only costs about $2k more to buy the chassis and most of the same parts fit both an e30 and an e36? Same engine, trans, suspension, exhaust components, wheels, tires, brakes, etc. About the only difference is the diff. The composite body parts cost about the same too. This just supports the point that anything more belongs in SuperMod.

Supermod was not designed for that purpose from what i understand. It was merely there for the factory designed/manufactured cars...not just the "ITE/whatever is left over" class.

As for the E36 stuff being more expensive, just depends on how you build the car. Rear suspension is different, therefore the expensive components you are replacing in the E36 cannot as easily be swapped in. You can build an E30 that costs more then an E60 M5 racecar, just depends on what you do...thats my whole points, and i don't see why any more posts need to be made.

For the most part, its about the same to build anycar, b/c if you can find a cheap donor, its just whatever you add on....and if you have built a professional level car, you will know the parts add up fast! You will spend a couple grand in Hoses, connectors, brackets, etc alone. A chassis is a chassis, and a cage is a cage. Some want more than a cage. Is there only ONE reason there are tube frame, rear engine E46 M3's in the Belcar series? Or V8 powered Z3M coupes? Of course not.

And quite frankly, the people who have the ability to build anything faster are most likely building professional cars, pushing the limits of very strict rules to challenge them. If everyone followed every rule, and never tried to bend a rule, or push the limit, racing would never evolve, we would just be, well, we would all be racing nascar haha. ANd there's nothing wrong with that, its all personal preference.

Alright this post is useless, and so is this conversation. I'm done. Later girls.

This is probably a stoops question, but why are the cars in Steves post running with side windows up? Are those lexan windows? I guess I always thought that everyone ran with their windows *down*. Aerodynamically, I would think that this would actually be preferred. Are cars allowed to run side windows *up* at the club level/scca?

Ken Arutunian

This is probably a stoops question, but why are the cars in Steves post running with side windows up?

Yes, the windows are lexan...the DTM cars in his post share the floorpan with their street couterparts and even that is extensively modified. Side windows are pretty common in upper level sports car and endurance racing where the rules permit. It's very beneficial for aero but can really cause the interior to heat up.

As far as I'm aware, no amatuer racing organization allows you to run with side windows in place for safety reasons.

As far as wing extending behind the rear of the car, I would submit that any "Clarification" of the rule to limit this extention to 1 inch beyond the bumper is in fact a rule CHANGE. The rule is clear. Wings are free in Modified. I agree that spoilers and splitters have limitations, but wings are free. Protest me all you want.

Bryan, thanks for updating your Sig pic!

As for it getting hot in the cockpit, i read something about a climate control rule in some prototypes in 06.

And those DTM car's, the drivers sit in the trunk pretty much haha.

As far as wing extending behind the rear of the car, I would submit that any "Clarification" of the rule to limit this extention to 1 inch beyond the bumper is in fact a rule CHANGE. The rule is clear. Wings are free in Modified. I agree that spoilers and splitters have limitations, but wings are free. Protest me all you want.

What he said. The only limitations on a Mod (or Prep) wing are clearly listed in the Prepared rules as no wider than the body work and no higher than the roofline...all else is clearly allowed with the word FREE. If the 1" rule from Stock still applies to Prepared and Mod wings, then so must the "factory configuration" wording from Stock, otherwise, the word "free" has no meaning.

If that's the case, Mike, you've gotta go back to a E30 EvoII wing and it's back to the LTW wing for us. :)

Ouch...

Bryan, thanks for updating your Sig pic!

As for it getting hot in the cockpit, i read something about a climate control rule in some prototypes in 06.

And those DTM car's, the drivers sit in the trunk pretty much haha.

Just noticed the seat is also in the middle of the car. Talked about development costs! What a machine.
I actually like all the little *razors* on the car. Kinda reminds me of those chariots that had the spinners on the wheels that would destroy the spokes of the other competing chariots! Heck, I forget the name of that movie.

Ken Arutunian

Just to note, I just checked my documentation/pictures from Watts wing...its within the 1" from what I can tell. The design was kept close partially for looks...I would have had it pretty far back if it was not for that request though. We pushed the car by the airfoil tube mounts, so i know they can hold thier own.

Just to note, I just checked my documentation/pictures from Watts wing...its within the 1" from what I can tell.

It probably is, but if I ever want to move the turnbuckles to the rear, effectively moving the wing back 6 inches or so, I want to have the FREEdom to do so. :)

True. I was actually going to weld on a mirrored set of tabs on the back so we could experiment. You can probably order the next size up turnbuckle and be good to go. 30minutes to make the tabs and weld them on (gotta get paint off) and you'd be golden.

Now that I think about it, you'll need to have a slightly small clearance on the carbon wing mount because of the way the top of the airfoil tube mount it. Its in full double shear, with the backside fully welded. Not a big deal, virtually a FREE mod ;)

Does anyone make a solid wing for an e30. I broke the uprights on my wing at Roebling a couple weeks ago. I don't know if it was the way its mounted or if they were just not strong enough? I know Mike had the same problem with his. Basically I got a ricer wing and added height to the uprights. It broke right at the wing. I have been thinking of having new (stronger) uprights made or just buying a new wing all together? If there is a proven strong effective wing out there I would go that route, but if not I guess I will keep working with what I have. Any thoughts?

Thanks, Rick

I would like to know where to find the wing and mounts for the E30 M3 Steve posted from Reuter Motorsport. Checked out their website and catalog but nothing in there. Any ideas Steve?

Mike

The wing is in thier catalog i think. But it's several thousand dollars from what i remember and requires a lot of custom work.

Its pretty easy on an E30 M3 to make mount's because you can mount it right to where the license plate spot is. Easy to reinforce, and eas to mount right off there. Can make 4 posts (triangle) and just either add holes or a turnbuckle in for adjustment. Call upo GT-racing, get thie 426 wing, and the carbon supports. Go to a race fab shop and say mount it to the license plate area. Bling :)

What he said. The only limitations on a Mod (or Prep) wing are clearly listed in the Prepared rules as no wider than the body work and no higher than the roofline...all else is clearly allowed with the word FREE. If the 1" rule from Stock still applies to Prepared and Mod wings, then so must the "factory configuration" wording from Stock, otherwise, the word "free" has no meaning.

If that's the case, Mike, you've gotta go back to a E30 EvoII wing and it's back to the LTW wing for us. :)

Mike Akard didn't make the rule, nor did Mike Akard issue the ruling I've been sharing. Blame Mike Akard all you want for the ambiguous text/interpretation of the rule, but that does not change what the staffers have said in the past and confirmed within the past 24 hours. The real issue seems to be that Mike Akard bothered to ask before he built the first race car and apparently others assumed they could do whatever they want in contradiction to what officials have stated and now they want to blame Mike Akard for BMW CCA CR's interpretation!

Obviously there IS many a need for clarification/update/change in the rulebook on this topic and others to rid all this controversy once and for all. If the rulebook is ever rewritten to be much more concise and have a staff in place that will actually respond in public to requests for clarification, then the arguments about whether or not things ARE permitted will cease. Sure, there will always be those that want to argue whether or not something SHOULD be permitted in this or that class, but the ambiguous text really needs to go away in short order so all of the racers benefit from knowing precisely what is permitted in any given class. Those that want to argue will keep arguing, but those that just want to go racing in legal racecars will be able to do so without ongoing controversy.

I couldn't care less if what I've been told about rear wings is deemed totally inaccurate. In fact, I would really prefer it that way so that I can reap the rewards of changing the design of my wing to improve the aero on my own car IMMEDIATELY should it come to pass that way!:)

And Mike Akard knows, from reading the rule book, that only "Clarifications" that are posted on the Club Racing Website are valid. Verbal Clarifications or Rulings are invalid. The only valid process for rules enforcement (when there is one in question) is to have a fellow competitor protest an alleged violation, follow the protest procedure and obtain a ruling at the track, or (as in Piston Gate) after an appeals process after the track.

So, I stand by the definition (not my interpretation) of the word "free" as it relates to Wings.

Very true.

I think the biggest thing is BMWCCA racers have evolved greatly since the rules were "made."

A new rule book that is EXPLICIT needs to be made. No more room for sketchy interpretation. Either say it is allowed, or say it is illegal. Its not that tough...

There should be no need for Super mod...Is there a BMWCCA SUPER PREPARED, or Super Stock?

A rule should be, "X is illegal" or "x is free"

If there has to be 500 things lists, so be it.

Mike Akard didn't make the rule, nor did Mike Akard issue the ruling I've been sharing. Blame Mike Akard all you want for the ambiguous text/interpretation of the rule, but that does not change what the staffers have said in the past and confirmed within the past 24 hours. The real issue seems to be that Mike Akard bothered to ask before he built the first race car and apparently others assumed they could do whatever they want in contradiction to what officials have stated and now they want to blame Mike Akard for BMW CCA CR's interpretation!

Mike, come on now. I'm not blaming you. I've asked you for the name of who I can also talk to about this. You seem to have the inside connection. My requests posted through the website have never seemed to be effective in the past, so I want to know who the magic person to talk to is so that I can ask them myself why a rule so clear can be interpreted to limit the wing to 1" beyong the rear bumper.

I never asked for a clarification in the past because the rule on wings is perfectly clear from the standpoint of everyone else I've talked to on it. I didn't assume anything, I simply read the rule and followed it. There doesn't seem to be any gray area when a part is listed as free with 2 precise constraints. Are you suggesting that we should ask for a clarification on every rule, even the clear ones, when building a car? That would be 1000's of clarifications per build. I simply don't see anything unclear of ambiguous about the rule as it currently reads that would require clarification.

And Mike Akard knows, from reading the rule book, that only "Clarifications" that are posted on the Club Racing Website are valid. Verbal Clarifications or Rulings are invalid. The only valid process for rules enforcement (when there is one in question) is to have a fellow competitor protest an alleged violation, follow the protest procedure and obtain a ruling at the track, or (as in Piston Gate) after an appeals process after the track.

So, I stand by the definition (not my interpretation) of the word "free" as it relates to Wings.

Mike Akard has never claimed a Rules Clarification exists. In fact, Mike Akard posted that he would certainly be requesting one once the new administration is in place.

Perhaps we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black and Jon Holder needs to re-read the rulebook if he believes the only valid process for rules enforcement is to have a fellow competitor protest.

If wings are "FREE", then WHY is Jon Holder's wing so narrow and short? "Free" would enable you to make it much taller and wider to get it above the roofline and outside the bodylines so that it greatly reduced drag and increased downforce at the same time. Or... "Free" only applies to how far it extends backward as a matter of convenience for this argument??? You can't have it both ways....either wings are totally "FREE" or other rules apply and the remaining aspects of wings are "FREE" as CR has determined in the past.:)

Very true.

I think the biggest thing is BMWCCA racers have evolved greatly since the rules were "made."

A new rule book that is EXPLICIT needs to be made. No more room for sketchy interpretation. Either say it is allowed, or say it is illegal. Its not that tough...

There should be no need for Super mod...Is there a BMWCCA SUPER PREPARED, or Super Stock?

A rule should be, "X is illegal" or "x is free"

If there has to be 500 things lists, so be it.

Agreed.

Totally agree.

Disagree. Right now, I would say yes concerning Super Prepared and perhaps Super Stock in reality even though it does not exist in the rulebook. However, I'm very hopeful that the classes will be much better defined and those days of SP and SS will soon be well behind us.

I think a matrix list was underway at one point and is a good idea. A racer could look under his/her class and see the mods listed that are permitted or forbidden. It would take some time and it would be an ever-evolving list as new ideas come to light, but wouldn't it be nice to eliminate all of the controversy by having it in clear, concise black and white?

Agreed.

If wings are "FREE", then WHY is Jon Holder's wing so narrow and short? "Free" would enable you to make it much taller and wider to get it above the roofline and outside the bodylines so that it greatly reduced drag and increased downforce at the same time. Or... "Free" only applies to how far it extends backward as a matter of convenience for this argument??? You can't have it both ways....either wings are totally "FREE" or other rules apply and the remaining aspects of wings are "FREE" as CR has determined in the past.:)

It is as Bryan has so aptly stated, "Free" with two very well stated constraints, height and width (i.e. no higher than roofline, and no wider than vehicle). If the rules desired to make an additional constraint, for example, "the wing can't extend more than 1 inch behind the rear bumper" then the rules would also state this. It is illogical to assume that the drafters of the rules remembered to constrain the wing in height and width, but forgot to constrain the wing in terms of extension beyond the bumper. It simply does not stand to reason that this dimension was never contemplated. In fact, I would argue that it WAS contemplated and deemed, by ommision to be "free".

I welcome clarification to the rules where necessary. I even accept rule changes when attempting to encourage safety or limit ever increasing costs of racing.

My opinion is that Modified class is not the "cost limiting" class within club racing. As far as I'm concerned, we can get rid of Super Mod, make non-BMW race transmissions legal in Mod along with underbody aero, and thus accomplish the stated desire to widen the gap between Prepared and Mod by MOVING Mod. Just my opinion.

I SO agree with Mr. Holder.

Supermod should be for factory racecars only, otherwise MOD is the class.

Should wehave 25 classes each allowining one extra modification above the class below it?

It is as Bryan has so aptly stated, "Free" with two very well stated constraints, height and Width (i.e. no higher than roofline, and no wider than vehicle). If the rules desired to make an additional constraint, for example, "the wing can't extend more than 1 inch behind the rear bumper" then the rules would also state this. It is illogical to assume that the drafters of the rules remembered to constrain the wing in height and width, but forgot to constrain the wing in terms of extension beyond the bumper. It simply does not stand to reason that this dimension was never contemplated. In fact, I would argue that it WAS contemplated and deemed, by ommision to be "free".

I welcome clarification to the rules where necessary. I even accept rule changes when attempting to encourage safety or limit ever increasing costs of racing. My opinion is that Modified class is not the "cost limiting" class within club racing. As far as I'm concerned, we can get rid of Super Mod, make non-BMW race transmissions legal in Mod along with Aero, and thus accomplish the stated desire to widen the gap between Prepared and Mod by MOVING Mod. Just my opinion.


Without taking anything away from the folks that put our rulebook together, I think you are giving the process behind the wording of each rule too much credit. Surely you would agree that using the word "FREE" should be all that is necessary if nothing else applies and is also a bit out of place if other constraints exist. Perhaps the interpretation I was given on the wing extension to the rear had to do with the fact that nothing is supposed to extend more than one inch beyond the bumper (hence the reason lots of folks had to change their tow hooks) and is not even mentioned in the wing section but may also apply to the wing? Once again, I didn't make it. I only followed what I was told when I asked and now I'm getting bashed for sharing what I was told.:)

There's your first problem...just don't listen to what you are told ;)

I SO agree with Mr. Holder.

Supermod should be for factory racecars only, otherwise MOD is the class.

Should wehave 25 classes each allowining one extra modification above the class below it?

There is no such thing as a factory BMW racecar today.
PTG is a race team that competes against TMS and others in BMWs.

So, are you saying that all racecars made from body in white motorsport shells should be SuperMod and nothing else? Allowing anyone that can fund the Carbon rotors, Carbon flywheel, Carbon driveshaft, and unlimited aero modifications in Mod is really a great idea if you are one of the folks that can afford to have a $500k CLUB racecar, but not such a good idea when the stated goal is to provide a level playing field for stock based racecars. So, once again, what kind of problem do you have putting the S M on your car and going racing with the other folks with unlimited budgets? I would think that would be a lot more fun running for the overall win than just out-spending everyone else in CM for the class win against folks that didn't want to go so wild with their hobby.:)

How about Overseas cars that people bring into the country? PTG is not the only factory supported BMW team, infact they are not nearly as large as others.


The people who want to put that much more money in will go to pro series, no doubt. Poeple who are smart/fortunate enough to make that much money will not spend their time in club races. They will want to get as much as they can out of thier time, and going pro will allow for advertisement and larger events. Its all personal preference. Motorsport chassis are legal in CM I believe.

How about Overseas cars that people bring into the country? PTG is not the only factory supported BMW team, infact they are not nearly as large as others.


The people who want to put that much more money in will go to pro series, no doubt. Poeple who are smart/fortunate enough to make that much money will not spend their time in club races. They will want to get as much as they can out of thier time, and going pro will allow for advertisement and larger events. Its all personal preference. Motorsport chassis are legal in CM I believe.

I believe that Motorsports chassis are factory racecars and therefore SM by definition. I believe that PTG and the others are race teams that work with Motorsports chassis factory racecars rather than being factory race teams like Porsche, Audi, Ferrari, and others have. Several folks have the opinion that any Pro GS/GT car belongs in SM and any Pro ST car belongs in Mod. That has been the way several have been classed in BMW CCA CR events in the past (regardless of status of Motorsports chassis). Who knows? Yet another example of rules in need of improvement/clarification/change/rewriting.

I think David McIntyre will attempt to address the shortcomings in the rulebook rather than burying his head in the sand and hoping the controversy will just go away and I'm anxious to get the whole mess cleared-up!:)

Technically since its not a factory prepared car, just the chassis was provided, it would not be a limiting factor. The car itself is not prepared, built, nor previously raced by BMW or any factory team. It is not illegal in any way to put it out of Mod, other then engine displacement.

Motorsports Chassis should have no issues running in Mod.

I believe that Motorsports chassis are factory racecars and therefore SM by definition.

Not the way the rules read. ;) SM is stated to be for cars that exceed Mod level prep (things like carbon brakes, underbody aero, etc) and DESIGNATED, purpose-built BMW race cars. The specific designated cars are then listed:

11. Designated purpose-built racecars with BMW power
eligible to participate in Super Modified.
A. Tube Frame SCCA GT and similar lineage race cars with a logbook
issued by BMW CCA Club Racing prior to June 2002. Logbooks will not
be issued to this type of vehicle effective June 2002.
B. Factory constructed or factory authorized tube frame chassis racecars.
1. Chevron
2. Elva
3. Oscella
4. McClaren GTR

This is another clear rule in the rulebook that I'm not sure needs clarification. I've never understood why folks think a World Challenge or Grand-Am Cup car belongs in SMod. A Grand-Am Cup car is correctly classed as Mod and could almost be a Prepared car due to some of the limitations of the rules.

Man, it's good being on this side of the fence for once! Y'all are very entertaining!!!:redspot

Here's my red nickel's worth...Modified is Modified. Never saw the point with Super Modified. If someone wants to spend a 500k on their car...then go for it. Just make Prepared the class where a full cage can be used!:D Essentially, make Modified the new Prepared class...Make Super Modified just plain ole Modified. I guess I don't care what class I'm in at this point, 'cause I just wants to havs me some fun'n!!!

Seriously, the Prepared class should be a Major leap forward from the Stock class, just as the Modified class should be a quantum leap forward from Prepared! Freak'n Stock class should be STOCK.

Sheesh, did that make any sense at all????:eyecrazy

Ken Arutunian

Ken you could have had a dozen races in a SM by now ;)

If the new Pro Sm were hard top, i'd love to get into that!

Steve, pm sent to you!

Ken

I never asked for a clarification in the past because the rule on wings is perfectly clear from the standpoint of everyone else I've talked to on it. I didn't assume anything, I simply read the rule and followed it.

Mr. Watts is right on the money. If the rule says it is free, then it is free aka unrestricted. The reason that stipulation is used is because if the rules don't say you can, then you can't. So rather than have several hundred lines saying what you can do, you write a single line saying things are "free" and add in (the few) stipulations for what you cannot do. It is nonsense to say that because a lower class' rules state something that it should apply to a higher class in this case. The rules supersede each other.

If you followed that logic then you'd have to keep stock suspension pick-up points in Mod because Mod rules say they are "free", but Stock states they cannot be moved (yeah yeah, + camber plates via prepared rules). :rolleyes You could rip apart most of the rules that way.

If you wonder why BMW CCA Club Racing isn't attracting more people, look at this thread. Now that we are finally getting a local track and I don't have to tow 450+ miles, I have the option of converting my StreetMod SoloII E36 into a Mod BMW Club Racer for 2006. For the same cost (roughly) I could go racing with the SCCA in Spec Miata. Both have their pros and cons. However, the last thing I want to do is invest a bunch of time and money into a car if rules become "Do what we are thinking, not what we said." Which is the case in this thread, IMO.

Not the way the rules read. ;) SM is stated to be for cars that exceed Mod level prep (things like carbon brakes, underbody aero, etc) and DESIGNATED, purpose-built BMW race cars. The specific designated cars are then listed:



This is another clear rule in the rulebook that I'm not sure needs clarification. I've never understood why folks think a World Challenge or Grand-Am Cup car belongs in SMod. A Grand-Am Cup car is correctly classed as Mod and could almost be a Prepared car due to some of the limitations of the rules.

The rulebook is very clear preventing purpose built racecars (such as those built from body in white chassis) from being used in Mod classes, so they would have to be Super Mod by default. In case you would like to review the specific rule:

F. Partial tubeframe construction is allowed. Construction must be based
upon factory chassis. VIN numbers on the cowl and doorframe must be
in place.


Since the body in white motorsport chassis are not intended for DOT use and therefore don't have formal VIN plates installed in these locations from the factory, they go straight to Super Mod.

So, if you think otherwise, then perhaps it DOES need a formal clarification.:)

Well I was told Verbally, so it must be an exception :)

Not that I would even used a factory chassis, just saying there are ones racing that are not in SM I have seen.

Eitherway, "Office" was hilarious!

Since the body in white motorsport chassis are not intended for DOT use and therefore don't have formal VIN plates installed in these locations from the factory, they go straight to Super Mod.

I don't see DOT listed as a requirement, only that it be based on a factory chassis and have a VIN. Both of those stipulations apply to a Motorsport chassis...there is a VIN on the chassis and the chassis is from the factory. In the end, a Motorsport chassis isn't even optimally built for Mod anyway, so it's moot point if you've got that much $$ to spend on a chassis you can simply tear down a street chassis and build it right.

Darkgift makes an excellent point above. I'll be sure to use the suspension points example in my reply to the officials if this rumored wing clarification comes to pass.

Without taking anything away from the folks that put our rulebook together, I think you are giving the process behind the wording of each rule too much credit. Surely you would agree that using the word "FREE" should be all that is necessary if nothing else applies and is also a bit out of place if other constraints exist. Perhaps the interpretation I was given on the wing extension to the rear had to do with the fact that nothing is supposed to extend more than one inch beyond the bumper (hence the reason lots of folks had to change their tow hooks) and is not even mentioned in the wing section but may also apply to the wing? Once again, I didn't make it. I only followed what I was told when I asked and now I'm getting bashed for sharing what I was told.:)


Nope - don't think I am giving the framers of our rules too much credit. They have shown their talent with a set of rules that up until recently has been all that's necessary to have a competitive environment and very few rules breakers. I wouldn't agree that "Free" should be all thats necessary if nothing else applies. I believe that the framers of our rule book understand grammar and syntax and would specifically state a constraint when appropriate. The fact that the one inch beyond the bumper statement is somewhere else in the rule book is not a good argument.

Finally, I am not bashing you. I have a difference of opinion and looking at the letter of the rule book, my opinion is supported. There has been no request for clarification, no clarification issued and no rule change proposed or accepted. The Wing Rule remains Free in modified except for the two constraints on height and width. I am bashing secret rules interpretations from inside sources who shall remain nameless - bullshit.

I will abide by the rules, and right now, I am abiding by them. Should the rules be changed, I will abide by the changed rules. Just as you championed fender gate (the act of "rolling" the fenders to accomodate much larger tires than your competitors believed appropriate) so might I be the champion of Wing Gate. And FYI, I haven't even looked at my wing to see if it hangs beyond the rear bumper - I am just reading the rules and arguing a case.

Poeple who are smart/fortunate enough to make that much money will not spend their time in club races. They will want to get as much as they can out of thier time . . .

Here we disagree Steve. With my financial situation, I could pro-race if I wanted to. Currently, I don't want to. Nor do my business partners want me to. Nor does my life insurance company want me to and therefore, nor does my family want me to. There are other motivations for some of us.

Well there are always exceptions :) You are one of the sane ones, thankfully. You can always build a car to go pro and clubrace it during the offseason/weekends ;)


And Bryan, even if that rule passed, i think your dads car is in the clear from the pics I have.

Nope - don't think I am giving the framers of our rules too much credit. They have shown their talent with a set of rules that up until recently has been all that's necessary to have a competitive environment and very few rules breakers. I wouldn't agree that "Free" should be all thats necessary if nothing else applies. I believe that the framers of our rule book understand grammar and syntax and would specifically state a constraint when appropriate. The fact that the one inch beyond the bumper statement is somewhere else in the rule book is not a good argument.

Finally, I am not bashing you. I have a difference of opinion and looking at the letter of the rule book, my opinion is supported. There has been no request for clarification, no clarification issued and no rule change proposed or accepted. The Wing Rule remains Free in modified except for the two constraints on height and width. I am bashing secret rules interpretations from inside sources who shall remain nameless - bullshit.

I will abide by the rules, and right now, I am abiding by them. Should the rules be changed, I will abide by the changed rules. Just as you championed fender gate (the act of "rolling" the fenders to accomodate much larger tires than your competitors believed appropriate) so might I be the champion of Wing Gate. And FYI, I haven't even looked at my wing to see if it hangs beyond the rear bumper - I am just reading the rules and arguing a case.

Perhaps you are right about the rules drafters. Those SCCA folks that drafted the majority of our rulebook did spend a lot of time crafting the GCR that we cut and pasted into our book. It worked fairly well in the days when there was no points system, no Premier Events, North American Challenge, etc. However, when folks started "building" engines to race against stock engines in Stock and Prepared, things changed long before it started getting nasty as the effort to stop it from taking place gained momentum.

You, like so many others totally missed the point of Fendergate. To beat the dead horse one more time... There were already plenty of folks, especially in e36 cars, running tires that were much too large for what the rule intended, so I took it to another level specifically to SHOW everyone how absurd it was. Many of the same folks that had squeezed massive tires under their own stretched fenders were the ones making the noise that got the rule changed to reflect the original intent of the rule...the way I wanted it to be from the start. So, I lost the little public battle, but won the war to stop just one little area of rules creep.

Like you've said, you might be the champion of Wing Gate to bring about the change in the wording of the rulebook to reflect intent that cars still look like cars or maybe I need to take a 4' piece of Carbon or Alumalite and fabricate a wing that extends 3 or 4 feet behind the rear of the car right at the roofline and no wider than the body to facilitate the change in wording to reflect the intent of the rule rather than what it actually says right now. Surely you don't think in you wildest dreams that racers wouldn't jump all over protesting a massive, lightweight attachment on the rear of the car if it provided a significant downforce advantage while making the BMW look like some sort of racer boy nightmare?

I think the rulebook will see a major overhaul in the near future based on everything I've seen and heard this year. If and when it happens, I think everyone will see that the revisions reflect the conservative side rather than aggressive interpretation that has been referred to as class creep. Given David McIntyre's activities with CAAS, I predict that the class distinctions between Stock, Prepared, Modified, and Super Modified are vastly improved. With the clarity, there might well be several interpretations whose listing is precisely mentioned in a higher class distinction as the ongoing effort to curb class creep continues. :)

.Steve J.

Eitherway, "Office" was hilarious![/

Yes it was. I would have ended up with the Tea Pot:)

I don't see DOT listed as a requirement, only that it be based on a factory chassis and have a VIN. Both of those stipulations apply to a Motorsport chassis...there is a VIN on the chassis and the chassis is from the factory. In the end, a Motorsport chassis isn't even optimally built for Mod anyway, so it's moot point if you've got that much $$ to spend on a chassis you can simply tear down a street chassis and build it right.

Darkgift makes an excellent point above. I'll be sure to use the suspension points example in my reply to the officials if this rumored wing clarification comes to pass.

Bryan,

You are absolutely correct. There is no mention of DOT in the rulebook where it mentions VIN. I included DOT for YOUR benefit to help define VIN for YOU. VIN is a 17 digit alphanumeric system by definition. It is required on both the cowl and the door frame by DOT and by BMW CCA CR. None of the motorsport chassis that I've seen has a VIN. Sure, they have a chassis number, but this is NOT a VIN by definition. BTW... VIN stands for VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. A motorsports chassis was never a vehicle.

You could use changing brand/type sparkplugs as another example for your reply to the officials should the wing clarification not go your way because they are also not mentioned specifically in the rulebook. However, neither example would likely make any difference concerning the intent of the rule for rear wings when considered by the Rules Committee for Clarification.:)

Yes it was. I would have ended up with the Tea Pot:)

HAHA, I would have just taken the Video ipod and ran :stickoutt

Bryan,

You are absolutely correct. There is no mention of DOT in the rulebook where it mentions VIN. I included DOT for YOUR benefit to help define VIN for YOU. [QUOTE]VIN is a 16 digit alphanumeric system by definition.

Actually they are 17 digits, at least anything built since 1980 for the US. :D

I am bashing secret rules interpretations from inside sources who shall remain nameless - bullshit.


No desire to keep secrets or keep the names out of it.

The first interpretation was verbal in late 2000 or early 2001 as we were building my first e30 car for competition in BMod and virtually no one else was using a wing other than the LTW wing on an e36 car. Perhaps that was the reason for the conservative response at that time.

The first race was the first Gateway Tech race in 2001 when I got the first Annual Tech inspection and a straight edge was used on the wing to determine how much overhang it had. Perhaps other racers had concerns at that time...I don't know why it was done, nor do I remember who did it. But the fact that it happened supports the need for the clarification now.

In early 2004, as we were building the new e30 car for competition, there was no one serving as National Tech Steward, so I contacted the Chairman of BMW CCA CR (and Chairman of the Rules Committee) for clarification of several items on the car. Included were the rear wing and the fender rolling. I was told then that the fender rolling was technically permitted, but that the rule would be changed if I followed through with my plans to exploit the rule beyond its intent. I was also told that I could not fabricate an elaborate system behind the rear bumper as I had hoped because it did not reflect the intent of the rules or the spirit of the rules to keep cars asthetically pleasing. I proceeded with plans to excessively roll the fenders because I already had replacements standing by, but elected to utilze a commonly available rear wing because my ultimate plans for racing the car in Mod called for using the stock rear end of the car.

Currently, there is no formal Rules Committee nor National Tech Steward in place to consult, but that will change in short order. When the new staff is in place, I will formally request a rules clarification on the rear wing issue since I plan to immediately change my rear wing design if the prior interpretations are reversed. However, based on the tendency for conservative interpretations by the BMW CCA Board and the desire to eliminate class creep, I would anticipate the wording being changed to make the rule concisely reflect the previous interpretations I've been given. I guess we'll all see what happens when it happens.:)

[QUOTE=MAkard]Bryan,

You are absolutely correct. There is no mention of DOT in the rulebook where it mentions VIN. I included DOT for YOUR benefit to help define VIN for YOU.

Actually they are 17 digits, at least anything built since 1980 for the US. :D

Yes!
I stand corrected.
Thank you

[QUOTE=MAkard] You, like so many others totally missed the point of Fendergate. To beat the dead horse one more time... There were already plenty of folks, especially in e36 cars, running tires that were much too large for what the rule intended, so I took it to another level specifically to SHOW everyone how absurd it was. Many of the same folks that had squeezed massive tires under their own stretched fenders were the ones making the noise that got the rule changed to reflect the original intent of the rule...the way I wanted it to be from the start. So, I lost the little public battle, but won the war to stop just one little area of rules creep.


Wow... I remember hearing Secardi saying he had a 100 hours in those flares of yours. That was NOBLE of you to spend the time and $money$ just for a clarification. I am certain Secardi did not do the work for charity.

Thats right, you were planning on running mod anyways! That is why you spent the money to have a IP motor put in there... OH wait, that was to prove that Prepared cars were going TOO fast. :violinist

By the way was there any other car that was affected by the fender clarification besides yours? I do not remember any.


[QUOTE=MAkard]Perhaps you are right about the rules drafters. Those SCCA folks that drafted the majority of our rulebook did spend a lot of time crafting the GCR that we cut and pasted into our book.

Did Cr really just cut and paste the rules? Geez no wonder the "Pistongate" problem...we took SCCA's words and then chose a different interpretation. :rolleyes

Wow... I remember hearing Secardi saying he had a 100 hours in those flares of yours. That was NOBLE of you to spend the time and $money$ just for a clarification. I am certain Secardi did not do the work for charity.

Thats right, you were planning on running mod anyways! That is why you spent the money to have a IP motor put in there... OH wait, that was to prove that Prepared cars were going TOO fast. :violinist

By the way was there any other car that was affected by the fender clarification besides yours? I do not remember any.


If you were interested in the truth rather than a personal attack, I have the emails to prove it concerning fendergate and our discussions in April 2004 (first race was Barber in November 2004).

I had the Prepared legal engine in a widebody street car that I sold as a rolling chassis and elected to use it while my Mod engine was being built. Proving that your engine and a some others out there were bending the rules was never our intent, just a significant side benefit. I thought we were done talking about it, but now that you brought it up, we can discuss it all you like. Now that CR has some guts again, someone will surely follow those large bright red letters on your car and Put Up!

Several cars were affected by the fender rules change (not a clarification). My car has never been DQed. In fact very few cars have been DQed for non-compliance...other than yours for illegal engine modifications... in the history of BMW CCA CR, but that doesn't mean that racers with integrity didn't fix their cars to comply with the new fender rule rather than hoping they wouldn't get caught like you did with your "built" engine at TWS last Spring.

we took SCCA's words and then chose a different interpretation. :rolleyes

Exactly. Rules that seem perfectly clear to me from a SCCA background are deemed ambiguous by others. Such is life I guess.

holy crappola:eyecrazy ...from wingdinggate back to pistongate! in one single thread:eek: in the words of Rodney King..."can't we all just get along?" ;) :stickoutt ...but then again that too was only after he was beaten senseless...kinda like some topics of discussion in cr ;)

A common theme runs through all our "gates".

That of racers asking questions and getting verbal responses and then running with those answers and trusting that they are gospel.

If there is ONE thing we should learn from fendergate, pistongate and the soon to be wing-gate (gee, can't write that as one word, it doesn't work!)....... its that we're all vulnerable to believing what we're told.

Mike Akard even admits in his post that he restricted his wing due to a verbal answer to his question about the allowed parameters. (I remember that weekend at Gateway, the SCCA guys were doing tech since I was considering doing their school to get a license, and insisted I have a number stamped in my cage, a rule that was clearly not a BMW CR rule, and they gave me a hard time about the tow hook protruding, at that time I don't know what the BMW rule was, it was early in my first racing season)

I'm not privy to all the details, and don't really want to dredge it up, but I believe that this was part of the problem with pistongate as well.

I think a guiding principle for racers to follow would be simply....

If you're thinking about doing something to your car that you have not seen on any other car (wide ass fenders in a prepared car, or a wing that hangs out over the back ass by a foot) then it might make sense to get a written clarification ahead of time to make sure you're on solid ground. You may have found the best loophole in BMW CR that everyone will emulate, or you may be running afoul of the intent, and a clarification will make it clear.

As to this particular question of whether a wing can hang out over the back of the car, I have no idea what the answer is, frankly, free sounds like it ought to be ok, but I do wonder too if its an unintentional loophole being exploited as other parts of the rules have made it clear that a certain level of cosmetic bmw'ness or whatever is desired...(the ambiguous wording for dash for example)

For the sake of anyone who's spent a bundle on a wing that extends back past the rear bumper, I hope that any future rule changes or clarifications would allow them to stay. For the sake of keeping costs down and avoiding escalation of what it takes to be competitive, I hope its more limited.

Alex Lipowich

A common theme runs through all our "gates".

That of racers asking questions and getting verbal responses and then running with those answers and trusting that they are gospel.

If there is ONE thing we should learn from fendergate, pistongate and the soon to be wing-gate (gee, can't write that as one word, it doesn't work!)....... its that we're all vulnerable to believing what we're told.

Mike Akard even admits in his post that he restricted his wing due to a verbal answer to his question about the allowed parameters. (I remember that weekend at Gateway, the SCCA guys were doing tech since I was considering doing their school to get a license, and insisted I have a number stamped in my cage, a rule that was clearly not a BMW CR rule, and they gave me a hard time about the tow hook protruding, at that time I don't know what the BMW rule was, it was early in my first racing season)

I'm not privy to all the details, and don't really want to dredge it up, but I believe that this was part of the problem with pistongate as well.

I think a guiding principle for racers to follow would be simply....

If you're thinking about doing something to your car that you have not seen on any other car (wide ass fenders in a prepared car, or a wing that hangs out over the back ass by a foot) then it might make sense to get a written clarification ahead of time to make sure you're on solid ground. You may have found the best loophole in BMW CR that everyone will emulate, or you may be running afoul of the intent, and a clarification will make it clear.

As to this particular question of whether a wing can hang out over the back of the car, I have no idea what the answer is, frankly, free sounds like it ought to be ok, but I do wonder too if its an unintentional loophole being exploited as other parts of the rules have made it clear that a certain level of cosmetic bmw'ness or whatever is desired...(the ambiguous wording for dash for example)

For the sake of anyone who's spent a bundle on a wing that extends back past the rear bumper, I hope that any future rule changes or clarifications would allow them to stay. For the sake of keeping costs down and avoiding escalation of what it takes to be competitive, I hope its more limited.

Alex Lipowich


Yep! This is the Wing-Gate thread!:)

I'm sorry, I don't feel like reading through all of the crap, but did anyone mention that the rules say something like no wider the the widest portion of the body... so a PTG kit on a car would allow a much wider wing?

I'm sorry, I don't feel like reading through all of the crap, but did anyone mention that the rules say something like no wider the the widest portion of the body... so a PTG kit on a car would allow a much wider wing?

I don't think width was ever in question in the on-going discussion, but rather how far back the wing could go beyond the rear bumper. The rule reads "FREE", but the clarification I was given in 2001 and again in 2004 was 1" max. So...on it went!:)

Ok, but the width should also be an issue that covered in a rules clarification. Jon's car is much wider then a standard E36 body. So that means he can run a wider wing? So someone with a narrow body shows up with the exact same wing Jon runs (don't know the width on his or if it really is that wide) they would be protest bait.

***Ok, but the width should also be an issue that covered in a rules clarification. Jon's car is much wider then a standard E36 body. So that means he can run a wider wing? So someone with a narrow body shows up with the exact same wing Jon runs (don't know the width on his or if it really is that wide) they would be protest bait.***

I don't think anyone would challenge a wing that was equal to the width of the fenders put on that car in Mod. Jon Siccardi and Mike Akard for example have both put wings on their car that extend to the "new" width of the car, and I don't think anyone has any issue with that. Any car that has a wing that is wider than the body is certainly outside the rules, and "protest bait" the way the rules stand, even if someone else is using that wing on a wider body car.

What I personally would REALLY like to see is increased dialogue between friendly racers, again, in forums like this ahead of time, at driver schools when people are tweeking the cars before races, and in the paddock on race weekends.

Its always a shame when a racer has made an improvement where they think they're saving money, saving weight, or going faster for other reasons, but they find out that in fact, they have built a car that no longer conforms to spec. We all know that CR has to move away from verbal clarifications that are not written down. We all know that we have to REMEMBER that written clarifications that don't make it into the rule book are NOT valid the next year. Its not a perfect system, and some of us are going to get in a bit of trouble once and a while and have to spend money to correct a problem if we can't lobby in time for another clarification to be written, or a rules change to be made. As painful as that process is, as angry as a racer may be at having to consider making a change, or being "protest bait", I would hope that in the end, the opportunity to fix it in advance of a potential protest is appreciated.

I for one would far prefer not to see any infractions at the track that make me queasy, or put me in a position where I might want to talk to that person after a close race. Who WANTS conflict on a fun race weekend?

The MOST upsetting situation has occurred many times already, where a racer from another class might hold someone up with similar lap times, and prevent that guy from lapping, and or advancing to chase people in his own class. In that situation, there may even be a temptation to protest someone out of class... I don't even know HOW to approach that situation, nor can I predict how I'd feel in that situation. But any of us could imagine being frustrated in that position I'm sure. The temptation to protest out of retribution would be enormous, when what is really appropriate is probably a discussion of why they wouldn't let you by when you're not even in the same class and racing for points on that day. Everyone wants to place well within the whole field, but it shouldn't be at the expense of holding someone up who's not in your class. Cars lapping others, cars starting at the back of the pack, or cars that didn't qualify well are not uncommon places to find this conflict on many race weekends. Its obviously off subject for the thread...sorry.

[QUOTE]The MOST upsetting situation has occurred many times already, where a racer from another class might hold someone up with similar lap times, and prevent that guy from lapping, and or advancing to chase people in his own class. In that situation, there may even be a temptation to protest someone out of class... I don't even know HOW to approach that situation, nor can I predict how I'd feel in that situation. But any of us could imagine being frustrated in that position I'm sure. The temptation to protest out of retribution would be enormous, when what is really appropriate is probably a discussion of why they wouldn't let you by when you're not even in the same class and racing for points on that day. Everyone wants to place well within the whole field, but it shouldn't be at the expense of holding someone up who's not in your class. Cars lapping others, cars starting at the back of the pack, or cars that didn't qualify well are not uncommon places to find this conflict on many race weekends. Its obviously off subject for the thread...sorry.

Alex, I hope that wasn't the case at Mid-Ohio(Pumpkin)

The MOST upsetting situation has occurred many times already, where a racer from another class might hold someone up with similar lap times, and prevent that guy from lapping, and or advancing to chase people in his own class. In that situation, there may even be a temptation to protest someone out of class... I don't even know HOW to approach that situation, nor can I predict how I'd feel in that situation. But any of us could imagine being frustrated in that position I'm sure. The temptation to protest out of retribution would be enormous, when what is really appropriate is probably a discussion of why they wouldn't let you by when you're not even in the same class and racing for points on that day. Everyone wants to place well within the whole field, but it shouldn't be at the expense of holding someone up who's not in your class. Cars lapping others, cars starting at the back of the pack, or cars that didn't qualify well are not uncommon places to find this conflict on many race weekends. Its obviously off subject for the thread...sorry.[/QUOTE]


Alex, do you think it could a case of not recognizing what class car is behind them. I think this could be part of the issue. Unless the car behind them is a wide bodied car...I'm just not sure how you can tell if it's one of your own competitors. I'm starting to wonder if it might not be a bad idea of having some form of identification on the front of the car that would be a dead giveaway as to the class of car. I'm thinking that it should somehow be color coordinated or maybe the Tire Rack banner could have the class ID displayed. I don't know the answer...just think that there might be a solution if we could somehow alert the driver in front that we are not in the same class and no reason for a fight!
Anyone got any ideas? Heck, I may be out to lunch on this one.

Ken Arutunian

Nope, no problems.

I'm confident enough, and secure enough to come up and talk to anyone I think should have let me by or was holding me up... in person, after the event. I would have surely come up to you and made a comment if I felt that way after the event.

In any race I've been in, when I find someone on my tail in the turns, someone that I can easily put distance on in the straight, I try and make sure that is the case, and then I let them go... I figure I can learn something from them, or that I may be holding them up, and its not gentlemanly. Besides, its fun to trade off positions in a race and learn from other racers... hell, this is not professional racing where there is money involved.

I try to be especially courteous if I find myself bunched up between cars of a same group, I don't want to mess up their race. Sure, ego is a part of every racer, but I hope there is no one out there who feels I blocked them for too long a time, and didn't let them go just because I had HP down the straights. If had too many races where my tires aren't right, the swaybar is broken, or the steering is screwed up and I don't run to my potential or the cars potential, so I have too much experience letting cars of other classes by me to continue in their race. But there have been times where I have had frustration, either by poor qualifying, starting at the back, or lapping, when I was a bit ticked off and not getting a courtesy pass from a car in front of me. I honestly don't recall names and dates, but I'm speaking in principle, not trying to call one person out.

Mid Ohio was a frustrating event for me because of mechanical issues. I had a devil of a time with my steering and a huge PS hose leak. I had a swaybar that was not attached at all on saturday before the steering went completely for sunday.

Worst of all, I was fighting a horrific disk problem in C5-C6, it was all could do to stay on the track and try to have fun without PS and my neck problems.

Agruably, I need to do better car prep and improve my health before returning to the track!

Alex.

Alex, do you think it could a case of not recognizing what class car is behind them. I think this could be part of the issue. Unless the car behind them is a wide bodied car...I'm just not sure how you can tell if it's one of your own competitors. I'm starting to wonder if it might not be a bad idea of having some form of identification on the front of the car that would be a dead giveaway as to the class of car. I'm thinking that it should somehow be color coordinated or maybe the Tire Rack banner could have the class ID displayed. I don't know the answer...just think that there might be a solution if we could somehow alert the driver in front that we are not in the same class and no reason for a fight!

Ummm - there is a system of letting people know - it's called putting your number and class on your hood.

From the 2005 rules:
7. Car Numbers, Class Identification, Decals
A. All cars must display easily readable numbers and class designation for
identification. These must be displayed on each side, front (hood) and
rear of the vehicle, of significant size and color differentiation from the
body color so as to be clearly seen by event officials. Side and hood
numbers shall be a minimum of 8 inches high with a 1-1/2 to 2 inch
stroke. The rear number shall be a minimum of 3 inches high with a
minimum ½” stroke. Class identification shall be near the numbers and be
a minimum of 3 inches high. Class identification will consist of 2 letters,
i.e. A-Modified = AM, I-Prepared = IP, J-Stock = JS. Identification for a
car in Super Modified will be the letters SM.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Hope Club Racers will get a chance to look at the new rules...

I think there's something for everyone there!

Undercar aero is now clearly allowed infront of and behind the axles.....

This makes it tons easier for us.

There are however some interesting addtions, and people will really need to look at all the highlighted areas in the ENTIRE rule book to see what applies to them.

There are a lot of new guidelines for things like batteries, location of batteries, harnesses, H&N, cage design, wings, aero and all sorts of goodies.

All in all, a great step forward, and very exciting news for all of us.

LOTS of gray areas cleared up.