Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Rear Wing Mount height request

  1. #1

    Default Rear Wing Mount height request

    Some cars barely have 8-10" of height due to the sloped glass of the hatch. However, they do not meet the definition of a "hatchback" per SCCA.

    I'd like to mount the wing below the roofline and have enough gap between the wing and the car to get proper airflow over the wing.

    The following was submitted per Tracking Number: #20770:

    The requirement to have the rear wing mounted 6" below the roof line is too restrictive for several "pseudo hatchback" cars that have a long sweeping glass rear hatch (e.g., Toyota Celica, Mazda MX3, Honda CRX).

    The entire rear wing assembly, including the end plates and any wicker, shall be mounted a minimum of 6.0 inches below the peak of the roof or roll cage main hoop whichever is higher, measured at the highest point. Cars with a wagonback/notchback/hatchback style body may have the rear wing assembly, including the end plates and any wicker, mounted a maximum of 4.0 inches above the highest point of the roof. For this subsection, a wagonback/notchback/hatchback style body (or variations of these) is a car

    Cars in which the rear edge of the roofline is no more than 28.0 inches forward of the rearmost bodywork as measured along the vehicle longitudinal centerline may have the rear wing assembly, including the end plates and any wicker, mounted a maximum of 4.0 inches above the highest point of the roof.
    1985 CRX Si competed in Solo II: AS, CS, DS, GS
    1986 CRX Si competed in: SCCA Solo II CSP, SCCA ITA, SCCA ITB, NASA H5
    1988 CRX Si competed in ITA & STL

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    798

    Default

    I brought this up with Greg, but never officially put in a letter. From what I remember the rule was copied from GT. I was trying to find a car that was a notchback that the edge of the room was 28" away from the back of the car. Other than maybe a ford Anglia might meet the notch back rule.

    The edge of the roof for your CRX would be before the rear glass which I believe would be more than 28" away from the rear bumper.

    1960_cars_ford_anglia_105e_main.jpg
    Track Speed Motorsports
    http://www.trackspeedmotorsports.com/

    Steven Ulbrik (engineer/crew/driver)
    steve@trackspeedmotorsports.com

  3. #3

    Default

    back again with another submittal. references to figures or appendix are in the PDF I attached but you can get the gist.

    The SCCA Rules for Super Touring Light as written are biased against cars with a long sloping rear hatchback (note that the common use of the term “hatchback” is different than the SCCA definition).

    Also, the SCCA Rules for wings in general are not consistent. Please note the precedent set by the CRB regarding allowing wings in the GTL rules.

    The STL rules state that we can install a SCCA “Spec Wing” (APR GTC-200) but it needs to comply with other sections of the Super Touring Light ruleset. The STL rules state that the wing must be a minimum of 6” below the peak of the roof.

    The dimensions for the APR GTC-200 indicate that it is to be 10” off the mounting surface (Figure 1). This is most unfortunate because a CRX only has ~ 10” of height from the peak of the roof to the rear deck (Figure 2). Other cars have similar roof lines (e.g., Toyota Celica and Mazda MX-3, Figures 3 & 4, respectively).
    So it is not possible for a CRX to install a functioning SCCA SPEC wing even though the wing is specifically allowed. The STL rules would be more appropriate if it eliminated the 10” requirement and merely stated that the wing must be mounted below the roof line.

    There is precedent for this. The GTL rules have the same definition of a “hatchback” (e.g., rear edge of the roof line is no more than 28” forward of the rear of the car). However, the GTL rules specifically recognize that a CRX cannot properly install a rear wing unless it is treated as a Hatchback.

    • From the GTL specs:
      • “May mount wing per hatchback-station wagon spec, but no part of the wing assembly may be above the highest point of the roof. “

    A more complete rules excerpt is listed under A-1 in the APPENDIX.

    I am respectfully requesting that the STL height restriction of a minimum of 6” below the roof line be changed to “below the roof line.” I believe that this is equitable and consistent with the precedent set by the CRB for other sections of the SCCA rules regarding the use of wings.
    1985 CRX Si competed in Solo II: AS, CS, DS, GS
    1986 CRX Si competed in: SCCA Solo II CSP, SCCA ITA, SCCA ITB, NASA H5
    1988 CRX Si competed in ITA & STL

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,708

    Default

    You chose the wrong car.
    "Not my circus, not my monkeys..."
    No longer bathing in the "universal fearlessness of inexperience"... - B. Redmond


  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    You chose the wrong car.
    wouldn't really disagree but since the CRB made allowances for "proper" wing height in GTL, I thought it reasonable to try and build no that "precedent" rather than plow new ground...

    consider this request an "unintended consequence" of the GTL ruleset.
    1985 CRX Si competed in Solo II: AS, CS, DS, GS
    1986 CRX Si competed in: SCCA Solo II CSP, SCCA ITA, SCCA ITB, NASA H5
    1988 CRX Si competed in ITA & STL

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tom91ita View Post
    wouldn't really disagree but since the CRB made allowances for "proper" wing height in GTL, I thought it reasonable to try and build no that "precedent" rather than plow new ground...
    STL/= GTL

    But...this is SCCA. 'Cause "it's not fair".

    And..it's not the way we've always done it.

    GA, all about the "Not my circus, not my monkeys..."


    Edit: love me some Tom Lamb, truly one one of my favorite persons in the whole world...well, Adam is right up there, and maybe Myles, but Tom is the top #1 fav...but this is why I resigned from the STAC and am now running a different class, because STL has become all about "but it isn't FAIR!!!" ...and yet STL was never about "fair" (find for me that definition in the Technical Glossary) it was about "run whatcha brung and figger it out"...but SCCA just seriously can't handle that 'cause everybody needs to be "fair"...and when a Honda guy in STL is complaining about it ain't fair...well, we're pretty much done here...

    Fortunately, we can now all go to the Runoffs simply by showing up (i.e., writing a check) at three events and taking the green flag, that way the poor disadvantaged folks can get into The Show and not feel bad about themselves get the be at the big event and post photos on Facebook about how they're there, so there's at least that, right...? <insert Kumbaya moment>
    Last edited by Greg Amy; 05-25-2017 at 09:54 PM.
    "Not my circus, not my monkeys..."
    No longer bathing in the "universal fearlessness of inexperience"... - B. Redmond


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Arlington, VA USA
    Posts
    535

    Default

    Now that's not fair, Greg. We all know that the majority of the folks at the Runoffs can't post to Facebook from their flip phones.
    Gregg Ginsberg
    '96 Civic EX -- MARRS ITA #72
    WDCR-SCCA Rookie of the Year 2003
    MARRS ITA/T3/T4 Drivers rep

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •