Possible rule idea's

[Nadz44]

You can still modernise an old school car though, this falcon in America is a perfect


http://www.ebaymotorsblog.com/gt-1-ford-falcon-race-car/

[Corolla52]

That looks really good.

[MrBoost]

Like phil said some new cars can still look terrible, there some ugly ugly new tanks coming out these days.
Its not hard though to make an older car look ALOT better with some small modernistion LIKE a wing upgrade. If we dont start somewhere, we will just fall behind even furthur.

I know what a trans-am body costs, i looked at getting the glen jung rx7 body in for my car. it was about
$15,500 but then there was gst, air frieght etc and it was going to cost me 20k landed at least.
Where as i could get a locally made sports sedan body that looked 10 times better than the trans-am one and
was less than half the price which now enables me to invest in a little bit of aero mods to make it much more efficient.

My point before was that it was said that the nemo body cost more than your whole car, not that your body was comparable
in price to the nemo body. Nor should it be for the difference in effect.
I just said the car was close to your build cost as you stated on here it owed you around 300k or something like that,
its gone now from when you took all the photos etc of your car off the forum for some reason

[accomotors]

Hey guys,

I don't know what my opinion is worth but I'm gonna give it anyway. I personally can't afford to run a big dollar car or compete at national events, I most probably won't even be running a wing on my car, but I do take interest in this subject. I can see where everyone is coming from. I think we should all focus back on the primary issue and that is the rear wing. It seems all too often that people get a "oh yeah and what about" attitude and one thing leads to another and suddenly we're talking about 50 changes. They think if discussing rear wings why not add front splitters or front guard holes or something. We're talking about rear wings.

Phil is right when he says some pople would rule change themselves into oblivion. There needs to be careful consideration and small adjustments, not wholesale changes and additions because one guy made a passing statement about something.

The thought I have been having all through reading the article is about visuals. A larger wing doesnt HAVE to provide as much downforce as a smaller wing, it just has to look like it does. A larger wing providing the same downforce doesn't necessitate changes to other areas of aero; it's the same amount of downforce. For a lot of the public, bigger is better. Remember, most spectators dont take as much of an interest in racing as we do. They don't study the rule book and appreciate the cars because of their fine balance of modification and speed and aero and whatever. They see a loud, flashy car with stuff hanging off it everywhere going real fast and they think "Oh mate, that's sick!" I know these aren't the types of people you want involved heavily in the class, but think about the average V8 Supercar fan and how successful that class is?

How many little Jap cars do you see on the street with a giant wing they bought from Super Cheap bolted onto the deck lid? I mean, hell, the new Toyota 86 is optional with a giant wing! Again, you don't have to change everything all at once in a huge way and a larger wing doesn't have to be as efficient, but think about what the man on the street is thinking: "Oh, bigger wing, faster racing car!". Besides that, the world seems to be stuck in the 'monkey-see, monkey-do' mentality and that is how people perceive racing cars. If 'time attack' (whatever that is) and 'drifting' (I wish I didn't know what that was) are running these huge wings and that is what everyone is watching then a car with a smaller wing must be 'old school' and therefore crap. If you ultimately want people with these types of cars to convert to being Sports Sedan competitors (and that would be a great thing for the class) then things like rear wing must be similar. The average 'time attack' competitor probably thinks "I would have to put a smaller wing on? How does a smaller wing make it faster? Those cars are slow and boring." I know that is not the case (but I'm not all down with the lap times and all that) but thats the PERCEPTION; and you gotta think like a mouth-breather.

It is right to say that adding a different rear wing is a less expensive option than others but it isn't as simple as just adding something to the rules. Those that make the rules make them for a reason and should consider things carefully. That's why there are panels and committees and stuff, but I know you're writing a submission thing and that's all good.

But that's just me.

[Alfaspeed]

Where are we now with the Rear Wing rule.
I can buy a used 2000 mm wide wing with a 400 mm cord
But would like to know if that would be allowed.

While reading in the regulations that the car can be up to 2050mm wide around the wheel Wells.
Hope its allowed to run a wing like that.

[MrBoost]

nope, the old farts of the category want to keep it at 1800mm wide for a single and 1600mm wide for a dual element (in the new proposed rules)
Some of us pushed to have 2000mm wide as you can buy them off the shelf everywhere (more so 1800mm wide duals) but they think people will have too much downforce then........ which is ridiculous because none of them have anywhere near enough front downforce to compensate for it anyway. Much better off to buy a nice CHEAP off the shelf wide wing and trim it out until the car is balanced rather than pay extra to have a already made wing cut down to size to suit.

Stone age crap!


Anyway, currently you are only allowed a 1600mm wide wing in single or dual element if it has a chord of 400mm

[Alfaspeed]

Thanks Mr Boost.
It might be considered for the next season I hope. Can get it very cheap