Possible rule idea's

[MrBoost]

Your cutting out half the market though, tell me the BAD effect it would have to just make the rule
that you can have a dual element or single element rear wing up to the width of the widest part of
the rear 50% of the car?
As i said i was looking for a new rear wing, i don't need one i just knew the new rule was there and
thought id take a look around. There's off the shelf wings everywhere, but most don't comply
with our category as there too wide, made for gt or time attack.
Yes we have too much rear down force on most cars, that's there problem for lack of trying.
If anyone bothered to explore building proper front undertrays they would find they could max
out half the home built rear wings out there.
If you dont want more downforce, lay the wing element flatter..... dont get a bigger wing. Up to the individual.
But why restrict ourselves when we are already falling behind all the 'cool' categories that we were once 'cooler' than?
Tell me the harm it would have?

Sorry i didn't take enough notice before the rule was just amended to bring this up. I had thought
for a while the time attack cars look way crazier than our cars, but after seeing the gt's
at the mountain it really stuck out to me and a few others that we are starting to look, well... old
and some of it is easy fixed, or at least helped.

Rule stability is cool, but its not like we are changing a massive structural thing here.
Another 'easy' thing that would go along with this could be our front splitters.
Some genius a few years ago harped down about splitters following the line of the front
of the car and made everyone cut them back...WHY? we just lost visual appeal, we lost
downforce, what was the point in that? Why not make it that you can go 150mm forward
of the furthest point of the bumper and gain ourselves a heap of helpful front grip.
Again its a piss easy change that only requires a piece of aluminium or carbon riveted
or whatever to the underside of existing splitters.

Also it was just a suggestion, that so far other than yourself has been looked upon with agreement?

While on a rule rant consider this...... Why is time attack so successful? Do some of you even realise how successful it is? Why is there literally a 100 cars being built or are built out there over the last 2-3 years on budgets that i would kill for, that go faster than 90% of our cars and in quite a few cases now 100% of our cars? Wouldn't you prefer these guys built sports sedans with this money and quality rather than super sprint cars? How many guys under 35 have come along with a good sports sedan wanting to run nationals in the last 10 years?
Point being how hard is it to move with the times a little, aero visual appeal and even bigger 'performance' is the biggest growing part of todays motorsport and the most un tapped area
of sports sedans. The rules were always put in place originally because of cost blowout.
But now you can buy bodies off the shelf from places like voltex, veilside, vertex, charge speed, c-west just to name a few that make more downforce than any car we have on the track and at decent
prices alot cheaper than what ive heard some people pay to get bodies built.

anyway all i'm asking at the moment is for peoples opinion's on a rule change of the rear wing, not
there rude opinion's of myself and sports sedan committee's
I may as well add a front splitter rule change if i'm writing the rear wing one.
I will put it forward at the committee meeting in early march to be distributed to other states.

now rather than this getting all bitchy

what do people who have cars, are building cars or about to build a car think of the possible rule change's?

[Toymax]

I doubt that I will ever "pull my head in"

Nuff said.

Well articulated Nick, and not a bad suggestion. Like I said, there's a process involved but if you guage enough interest/support then it can be drafted as a proposed rule change. That doesn't mean the rule change will happen - if the state and national representatives agree to it and recommend it, it still needs to be approved by CAMS - as it is with any rule change.

Phil is right about the need for stability in rules, but your argument for "keeping up with the times" is sound.

[Phast Phil]

Is time attack successful?

Just a question as I have not followed time attack nor have I seen any Aussie time attack in the general or motorsport media or on TV.......ever. I have seen some drifting and I understand that was successful but last time I spoke to someone about drifting they told me the crowd following had waned; not sure how much but it is not growing anymore.

I have seen 3 time attack cars at fabricators and the most radical was one big underwing ground effect car. It was a Mitsubishi Evo something. This car is worth a motza.

I do not have all the answers but I do know that the little trans-am wing at 1830mm (72 inches for the american fans) generates adequate downforce. I am running mine at about half setting so we are not maxed out by a long way.

The old straight front spoilers were changed to car shape mainly because they were ugly..and they were really ugly on some cars, I do not think most would want to go back there. There is enough undertray on most cars to get a reasonable amount of front downforce rather than resorting to uglyness IMO.

[profi]

Phil, what's the downsides of allowing larger rear wings? seems sports sedans look very sedate compared to a large majority of winged race cars these days.

Japan super GT


GT3


DTM (not so large but mounted a long way back past the bumper)

[TF CORTINA]

Hello even though it still might be a while before I get my TF cortina sports sedan done I have often thought about my bodywork on the car I have three front spoilers all conforming to the old rules I honestley don't want to cut them up to suit the newer rules regarding front spoilers and I personally think they are not ugly, with regards to the rear wing my car is around 1700mm wide I would be happy to run a wing that wide but only if I could have the dual element wing.

[2JZSS]

As i'm building a car i thought i throw my 2 cents in...

I agree for bigger rear wings and moving with the times. I also agree stability in the rules is needed.

But....

I'd love to see the cars progress with a bit more aero. It would save me having to reshape my front guards because they are a bit boxy.... and having to close in most of the vents in the bonnet.... I can honestly say it would have taken a shed load less time to just bolt on the top secret wide body kit than to bolt it on then reshape it to the current rules. The car would be ALOT closer to being finished than it is now.

Not complaining as i know what i signed up for but hell the car would look/go that much sweeter as it was in stock wide body kit form with motorsport trimmings (diffuser/splitter etc).

[MrBoost]

yes mate time attack is massively successfull, media wise it beats sports sedans 10 fold.
and it doesnt even need a 'speedweek' section to compete.
The car you refer to as worth a "motza" is probably the nemo evo that did a 1.25 around the creek with only 450-500hp. I also know the build cost of the car and from what im told of your new car the evo was cheaper.

Apart from the australian audience, the aussie time attack is famous WORLD WIDE and on a large scale.
The evo you refer to has been asked to do a demo at the red bull top gear festival of speed. you know with those small time media guys hammond, may and clarkson. Oh and next to webber, stoner and whincup.......
The time attack events also had a much bigger crowd than the supercars, has 20,000 odd daily followers on facebook ( that means every day at LEAST 50% or 10,000 people would be looking and reading and commenting about these cars) and has sponsorship from yokohama, tectaloy, hi octane, hankook, dixicel, gcg, royal purple, tein, haltech, harrop etc etc.

There is 3 new 150k+ time attack cars at a friends fabrication shop today alone, If i could be bothered id start to roll out a number of names, cars etc that would blow you away.

Back to the wing's, i believe (and im told by someone who actually KNOWS) that the trans-am wing makes stuff all 'adequate' downforce.
Your running yours at half setting with what front downforce?
Front spoilers being ugly is again a backyard sports sedan problem. Maybe if people see how to do them properly to actually make them effective they will make them look a bit nicer. If there was enough front under tray currently we wouldn't have our little wings at half tilt.

[John HENDERSON]

My two cents,
I agree with Mr Boost, that wider rear wings wouldn't hurt.
I recently purchased a sports sedan and my biggest concern is the the lack of downforce on the front of our cars.

The fact that our sports sedans are being blown off a bathurst by v8supercar, shows we need to keep up with the times and get more downforce, partically at the front. We are currently slower than V8 supercars, Gt sports cars around Bathurst, what next improved production?.

I know that there is various reasons why we are slower, years of development of V8supercars, lack of suspension travel(most of our cars were not designed to go off jumps) and the width of out cars dosn't help top speed to name a few. But to me, being so much slower than the others make us look bad. I have raced a V8 supercar around Bathurst, and the idea of understeering across the top of the mountain in a sports sedan annoy's me greatly.

I have been very busy of late, but I will shortly become a NSW member and will suggesting that we are allowed to put some angle into our undertrays, as this is where a fair bit of our front downforce comes from.

I think sports sedans is best category in Australia. And think it should remain that way. I do not want to see us fall a long way behind other categories or lap dash cars, regardless of there budget.

Regards

[2JZSS]

Add to that the 1.25 at Eastern creek was run on .... wait for it..... Semi Slicks. It would be great to see what it could manage on a full slick.

It will be a sad day for sports sedans if the time attack cars ever start having races against each other. It would pretty much make our category null and void to the younger generation. The generation that's expected to carry it on in the future.

http://www.nemo-racing.com/

[Phast Phil]

john, we are already allowed angle in the front untertray, you can go back as far as the axle line.