Jump to content

What happened to your ChampCar today 2021 ??


Ray Franck
 Share

Recommended Posts

Whipped up a LS reluctor wheel aligner. Printing now.

 

spacer.png

 

Don't feel like spending $255 for the patented tool for something I may use once or twice.

 

If there is someone that knows about patents drop me a pm. I think this may be different enough from the patented tool to be marketable.

Edited by Bandit
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All a patent does is allow you to sue someone who copies your design. If you think you'll be doing that, get a patent.

 

The best way to benefit from a patent is to make your device so desirable that everyone buys yours and the copiers don't have a big enough market to make copying it worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the design goes there should be no issue. With the utility patent they apparently tried to cover most every way one could align a reluctor wheel, so that has been a bit more difficult. And frankly makes me wonder a bit how that works as obviously GM has to apply and align them in the first place at the factory. And were doing it long before the "patented" tool came along.

 

I'm guessing GM doesn't consider it serviceable as there is no Kent Moore tool for doing this. However, one can buy reluctor wheels....

 

Their tool does work well, however garage guys have an issue with paying $255 for something this simple they will likely use once;

spacer.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changed the fittings for the fuel return line.  Staked the rear axle nuts.  Took out the cooler to clean it and made plugs to make it removable.

 

Still gotta vacuum, bleed brakes, bleed clutch, and nut and bolt before NCM.  

 

I think I'm in pretty good shape! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finished ziptieing the radio harness in place.  Reinstalled the now clean cooler.  Vacuumed (lots of OPR) in all the hidden places.

 

Bleed brakes and clutch, nut and bolt, cut down splitter (forgot 2021 rule) check for fuel leaks (changed some stuff).  Load up car.

 

Still in good shape for next week.

 

7 sleeps until at the race!

Edited by wvumtnbkr
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, mcoppola said:

???

Please elaborate...

Can't be wider than the published width of the body.

 

This was NOT in the rule book for 2020.  The 2020 rule did not specify stock width of body.  Now, it does.

Edited by wvumtnbkr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Technical Advisory Committee
12 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Can't be wider than the published width of the body.

 

This was NOT in the rule book for 2020.  The 2020 rule did not specify stock width of body.  Now, it does.

 

12 minutes ago, Andrew D Johnson said:

 
Probably this?
image.png.72a8ae06bc6f7baee0222ffbf49083a9.png
 

You're both correct.

For 2021, Zones for Aero devices were detailed further than before by specifying limits on the width and length of the aero device.

1) The 2021 BCCR wording limits Aero device width to the OE body width (not flare width). (I think TECH pushed for this rule.)

IMO this was an attempt to regulate wing width more so than limiting air dam & splitter width. IMO it doesn't make sense to roll your fenders out from 10 to 2, but then the front leading edge of the tire can't be covered by the air dam and splitter. Those cannot extend out as far as the flares, per the 2021 BCCR wording.

I think Tech is going to find that a lot of cars currently don't meet that new wording - just like @wvumtnbkr's.

 

2) For 2021, fore/aft Zones were also better defined, with hard lines being drawn at the axle centerlines. This has affected several BOD and TAC members' cars (and others'), and made folks unhappy.

 

I do like the fact that hard lines were drawn limiting length and width. The length rule I like because it's straightforward and easily understandable and enforced. The width rule, I don't agree with that one so much... but it's what we have...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mcoppola said:

 

You're both correct.

For 2021, Zones for Aero devices were detailed further than before by specifying limits on the width and length of the aero device.

1) The 2021 BCCR wording limits Aero device width to the OE body width (not flare width). (I think TECH pushed for this rule.)

IMO this was an attempt to regulate wing width more so than limiting air dam & splitter width. IMO it doesn't make sense to roll your fenders out from 10 to 2, but then the front leading edge of the tire can't be covered by the air dam and splitter. Those cannot extend out as far as the flares, per the 2021 BCCR wording.

I think Tech is going to find that a lot of cars currently don't meet that new wording - just like @wvumtnbkr's.

 

2) For 2021, fore/aft Zones were also better defined, with hard lines being drawn at the axle centerlines. This has affected several BOD and TAC members' cars (and others'), and made folks unhappy.

 

I do like the fact that hard lines were drawn limiting length and width. The length rule I like because it's straightforward and easily understandable and enforced. The width rule, I don't agree with that one so much... but it's what we have...

Agreed on all counts.

 

Luckily, my splitter stops about 1 inch in front of the centerline of the front wheels.

 

My tires stick out about 3 inches per side further than the splitter is allowed to now...  

 

Yes, I have YUGGGEEE flares.  Because flares an 10 inch wide tires are badass.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Technical Advisory Committee

Well, I hope they don't try to enforce flare width that exceeds 10 to 2. 

It would be a bit tough (and SUCK major) to have to narrow this back up....

IMG_3932.JPEG

IMG_3936.JPEG

IMG_3928.JPEG

Edited by mcoppola
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mcoppola said:

IMO it doesn't make sense to roll your fenders out from 10 to 2, but then the front leading edge of the tire can't be covered by the air dam and splitter.

Likely only an issue for those running 245/255's on cars that came with 205's. Or smaller.....

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Technical Advisory Committee
16 hours ago, Bandit said:

Likely only an issue for those running 245/255's on cars that came with 205's. Or smaller.....

Well yea.....how else are we gonna get our grocery getters to keep up with your badass V8 stuff?

and hey, my car came with 215’s. With 245’s on 9’s, it’s actually only 1.5” per side that the tire/rim exceeds the stock  OE width.

...and damn, 2100’ish would sure be nice!!

Edited by mcoppola
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being an auto engineer you know that 245's on a 2100(?) lb car>>>>>285/315's on a 3000 lb car. And 4.5% wider track is good for handling as well.

 

Second, without any restriction you know someone would build some sweet box flares to cover massive tires on big offset wheels (or get really frisky and build longer control arms/wider rear axle) to gain even more aero surface for free.

 

Third, ever take a wing to the head or a splitter to the ankle?

 

I'll side with tech on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bandit said:

Being an auto engineer you know that 245's on a 2100(?) lb car>>>>>285/315's on a 3000 lb car. And 4.5% wider track is good for handling as well.

 

Second, without any restriction you know someone would build some sweet box flares to cover massive tires on big offset wheels (or get really frisky and build longer control arms/wider rear axle) to gain even more aero surface for free.

 

Third, ever take a wing to the head or a splitter to the ankle?

 

I'll side with tech on this.

If you take my splitter to the ankle before I cut off inches on each side, you are already in trouble.  There is about 4 more inches of car about to hit you!

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 67Mustang said:

Yeah how about 155/80-13's replaced by 245/40-15's  or something similar lol

 

I am close, base RX7’s came with a 165HR 13 on a 5-inch rim. Now I am 2X that in rim width…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mcoppola said:

Well, I hope they don't try to enforce flare width that exceeds 10 to 2. 

It would be a bit tough (and SUCK major) to have to narrow this back up....

IMG_3932.JPEG

IMG_3936.JPEG

IMG_3928.JPEG

Looks good!  I think you're good as long as the flares don't extend past the mirrors, those are part of the body. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, hcsi99 said:

Looks good!  I think you're good as long as the flares don't extend past the mirrors, those are part of the body. 

Mirrors are not included in the body width.  That said, I think some flexibility exists near the tires since its an extension of the flare and helps with the overall intent of the 10-2 rule.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...