Jump to content

Wing points


Recommended Posts

My thought is a wing is a wing as long as it fits in the body width. 

 

My old car I made a wing with a cord width of like 16" that I made out of plywood that I cut up like and made like a model airplane, used foam to fill it in, sanded it, body filler and wrapped it. Old style as if used by wood it counted as sq feet of wood. They changed it to 10 points so all was fine. It has worked really well over the years, just has gotten old and really beating up, maybe water logged a time to many. It produced like 300lbs of downforce at like 125mph.

 

On my new car I got a wing that has a cord width of like 9.5" and produced like 125lbs of downforce. I wanted more so I got out the plywood again, make a small 3.75" cord width second element and bolted it to the first. It cost me almost nothing as I had scrap plywood sitting around.  It should do about 200lbs of downforce now, but that second element added a bunch of drag and has about the same drag as my homemade wing with less downforce. I was OK with that as it was better and worked good enough.

 

When I went to WGI tech told me that would be 20 points now instead of 10 as they see that as two wings and not just one. I said, it is a dual element wing, not dual element wings, they said it was two and I had to take 20 points. If I only took 10 on electronic sheet I could be protested and could be a dq.  I have the rulebook printed out and see nothing in there that says 20 points. I took the 10 points, but still feel like I should not have.

 

Can someone point me the rule? Or is this just a judgement call? Is it in the secret rulebook that I do not know about?

 

Also, why would a dual element wing be 20 points and a single element be 10 points? As shown above the number of elements does not really matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it a multi element wing will generate more downforce for the same or less drag.

 

Tech has been charging points per element for a while, hence I'm just going with a massive spoiler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bandit said:

As I understand it a multi element wing will generate more downforce for the same or less drag.

 

Tech has been charging points per element for a while, hence I'm just going with a massive spoiler.

If they have is there a rule that says they are?

 

I think for us the difference in drag is minimal at best for drag. My single element has less drag and more downforce than my multi element wing.

 

If there is not cord width rule then there should be no multi element wing rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with tech on this one.  Even WRL charges differently for single vs dual element.

 

Just because your dual element wing isn't as efficient as it could be, doesn't mean you get a second, or even third element for free.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ian said:

I'm with tech on this one.  Even WRL charges differently for single vs dual element.

 

Just because your dual element wing isn't as efficient as it could be, doesn't mean you get a second, or even third element for free.

And I am fine with that if there is a rule on it, I just do not see a rule on it and it seems like a judgement call.

 

Can anyone show me a rule on it or is there not a rule on it and given points as tech wants?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MR2 Biohazard said:

And I am fine with that if there is a rule on it, I just do not see a rule on it and it seems like a judgement call.

 

Can anyone show me a rule on it or is there not a rule on it and given points as tech wants?

Seems like Tech can consider this as a none listed added item, and assign points as they see fit.  I see your point , but A wing is what is stated in the rules a second element can easily be thought of as a second wing. Makes sense to me.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Technical Advisory Committee

So tire petitions, and many words on these forums yielded no tire rule changes - unfortunate.
Well, use your own advice to all of us - keep coming on here and finding more things to write long complaint lists about - while we work to improve our cars!! 😄

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcoppola said:

So tire petitions, and many words on these forums yielded no tire rule changes - unfortunate.
Well, use your own advice to all of us - keep coming on here and finding more things to write long complaint lists about - while we work to improve our cars!! 😄

Maybe if everyone who is complaining about rubber put the same effort into finding a marketing partner.....   They are right under your noses.   😂

Edited by DEE DEE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Technical Advisory Committee
4 hours ago, MR2 Biohazard said:

And I am fine with that if there is a rule on it, I just do not see a rule on it and it seems like a judgement call.

 

Can anyone show me a rule on it or is there not a rule on it and given points as tech wants?

You’re right. A 2nd element or wing is not covered in the bccr. Aero descriptions and pictures have improved greatly in the past few years, partly due to our Media/Marketing/Several other hats guy, working with Tac, Tech and BoD to improve the bccr. It’s is a constant evolution as loopholes and new cars are investigated and added/modified. 
in the meantime, Tim’s note best describes how Tech assigned points in this case. 

1 hour ago, Timothy G. Elliott said:

Seems like Tech can consider this as a none listed added item, and assign points as they see fit.  I see your point , but A wing is what is stated in the rules a second element can easily be thought of as a second wing. Makes sense to me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MR2 Biohazard said:

And I am fine with that if there is a rule on it, I just do not see a rule on it and it seems like a judgement call.

 

Can anyone show me a rule on it or is there not a rule on it and given points as tech wants?

 

It sort of is a judgment call.

 

- Wing +10 points is listed in the fixed point value list.

 

Dual element wing is Not listed in the fixed point list, and therefore it will be assigned a value by tech.

 

The really good builders always say they read the rulebook to find out what it doesn't tell you you can't do.  Just because it doesn't say you can't run a dual element wing, doesn't mean the second element is free.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand, tech considers each element a wing. So, a three element would be 30 points.

 

Makes more sense than a 3 core rad being 30 points. 🙂

 

I mean this seems like it should be more than 10 points as it obviously has more downforce than a single element.

spacer.png

 

Also, not an aero expert but I also noted that chord length is not limited. One could make a wing with a 30" chord for massive downforce, and ten points, if one wishes. Weight might start becoming an issue, but....

spacer.png

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mcoppola said:

So tire petitions, and many words on these forums yielded no tire rule changes - unfortunate.
Well, use your own advice to all of us - keep coming on here and finding more things to write long complaint lists about - while we work to improve our cars!! 😄

WOW.  What a great response and great help. Thanks for that, you really contributed to help the community and clarify a rule for me on my wing that is 20 points when I was thinking it should be 10. Maybe since you are on the TAC committee you should know where the rule is written and where I can look it up and help instead of snide nasty comments meant to piss people off.  

 

I was not discussion tires here, I was trying to figure out the rule on my wing and they why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mcoppola said:

So tire petitions, and many words on these forums yielded no tire rule changes - unfortunate.
Well, use your own advice to all of us - keep coming on here and finding more things to write long complaint lists about - while we work to improve our cars!! 😄

BTW- since you brought up tires what tires do you run on your car?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Technical Advisory Committee
1 hour ago, MR2 Biohazard said:

WOW.  What a great response and great help. Thanks for that, you really contributed to help the community and clarify a rule for me on my wing that is 20 points when I was thinking it should be 10. Maybe since you are on the TAC committee you should know where the rule is written and where I can look it up and help instead of snide nasty comments meant to piss people off.  

 

I was not discussion tires here, I was trying to figure out the rule on my wing and they why.

I'm sure you noticed that on my 2nd post, I did try to provide a bit of an explanation.

Couldn't help myself on my first response though - you're pretty good at dishing out on people, so I'm sure you're really good at taking it in return, right? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Technical Advisory Committee
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MR2 Biohazard said:

BTW- since you brought up tires what tires do you run on your car?

We've run Rivals, RS-3's and RS-4's when we've been able to race.

My car lost a motor in Fall 2017, and it's taken 3 years of garnering spare money and time to get it together again, along with a multitude of other upgrades to the car - so I'm not a very good gauge of current performance of any kind.

I DO Appreciate your efforts on keeping this racing affordable, as there would be No way I'd be able to do this if it weren't for the low budget nature of our series, It's a big part of why I volunteered to be on the TAC - to try to provide this opportunity for others and keep it affordable. 

I'm sure you're disappointed. But I hope and feel confident that the series will work through this issue as it has all previous issues, get past it, and continue to provide this playground for us. 

 

P.S. Hard to tell without hearing the words verbally, so I'm not sure if you truly wanted to know what tires I run - or if it was just another jab at me for not racing as much as some teams do - or as much as I'd like to. Either way, no worries. 

 

Edited by mcoppola
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mcoppola said:

I'm sure you noticed that on my 2nd post, I did try to provide a bit of an explanation.

Couldn't help myself on my first response though - you're pretty good at dishing out on people, so I'm sure you're really good at taking it in return, right? 

I do dish it out and can take it when it is is good fun. BTW- I have been working on both cars each day now and takes breaks, when I do I come on the forum from time to time.

7 hours ago, mcoppola said:

We've run Rivals, RS-3's and RS-4's when we've been able to race.

My car lost a motor in Fall 2017, and it's taken 3 years of garnering spare money and time to get it together again, along with a multitude of other upgrades to the car - so I'm not a very good gauge of current performance of any kind.

I DO Appreciate your efforts on keeping this racing affordable, as there would be No way I'd be able to do this if it weren't for the low budget nature of our series, It's a big part of why I volunteered to be on the TAC - to try to provide this opportunity for others and keep it affordable. 

I'm sure you're disappointed. But I hope and feel confident that the series will work through this issue as it has all previous issues, get past it, and continue to provide this playground for us. 

 

P.S. Hard to tell without hearing the words verbally, so I'm not sure if you truly wanted to know what tires I run - or if it was just another jab at me for not racing as much as some teams do - or as much as I'd like to. Either way, no worries. 

 

I only assumed you had a focus based on your signature and picture, no idea when you raced last. 3 years, YAH, that is a long time for sure and I understand that. It took me 2-3 years to finish Bio 2.0 due to funds and time. If I did it again I would have kept it simple to get out there and do things as time permitted.

 

I am glad you have faith and confidence in the series and it will work through the issue of tires with respect to being affordable. I have completely lost all my faith and hope that something will get fixed and done, as the BOD has shown what it will do when presented with tons of options to choose from, which is nothing.

 

20 hours ago, mcoppola said:


in the meantime, Tim’s note best describes how Tech assigned points in this case. 

 

I guess this is what is bugging me the most. I have the points for the 20 points for my wing, it is more in principle and reasons why. The rules says wing is 10 points. It states nothing about single element vs dual element. My example above shows it is a pointless rule and does not make sense. I am on the forum often and have seen nothing mentioned anywhere. I do not go into the secret tech articles rule book though as who has time to go through hundreds of those. My issue is that tech decides to add points or not based on what they feel like, even if there is not a rule, that I see as a problem.

 

What if a new team builds a car, comes to a race at 500 points and tech says, BTW, this is extra points and that is extra points, even though it is not in the rulebook anywhere to be found, we just feel this way. Now that new team gets the points and how do you think they feel about Champcar? Are they happy and want to continue racing with us? Maybe, maybe not, but why even introduce that doubt?

 

Do we have a list of things tech has decided to give more points for at their discretion? I now know of dual element wings, but what else is out there. If there are other things we need to have this list available to members so they will know.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Technical Advisory Committee

Troy, I agree with your thoughts in the last section. In a nutshell, yes, unwritten rules suck. It’s one of my pet peeves and things the tac is trying to rectify. 
the scenario of a new team being surprised at tech isn’t new to me. I’ve built roll cages for over a dozen cars, many for champcar, and some of those teams WERE surprised at tech and got a bad taste for ChampCar. It’s part of the reason the tac group strives to have a good bccr that can be followed easily. 
lastly, no, we the tac do not have a list of items tech has assigned points for. We do work together with them continually though to learn these things, and as has happened in the past, the FPV list keeps getting longer and longer as we include those items. It’s not a perfect situation, but believe me there are many people working behind the scenes to try to make this a fair and fun experience for everybody. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell Troy, you should have just applied a piece of duct tape between the elements and made it a single element wing for 10 pts!

 

Yes, I know that changes how it works, but it is just more of the absurdity of so many of "the rules".  So if we have to define single and multi element wings now, can we also define "spoilers"?  Also, as it seems there is an understanding of one being better than the other, can we get some realistic points attached to each one?  I.E. spoilers are fewer points than wings, bigger and/or multi element wings are more points than smaller single element wings (total surface area)?

 

No one wants a bigger rule book, but it seems the series has grown up and by NOT being restrictive enough early enough, has left the door open for more tech shed lawyering to come.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, craig71188 said:

Hell Troy, you should have just applied a piece of duct tape between the elements and made it a single element wing for 10 pts!

 

Yes, I know that changes how it works, but it is just more of the absurdity of so many of "the rules".  So if we have to define single and multi element wings now, can we also define "spoilers"?  Also, as it seems there is an understanding of one being better than the other, can we get some realistic points attached to each one?  I.E. spoilers are fewer points than wings, bigger and/or multi element wings are more points than smaller single element wings (total surface area)?

 

No one wants a bigger rule book, but it seems the series has grown up and by NOT being restrictive enough early enough, has left the door open for more tech shed lawyering to come.....

My dual element does touch the lower wing in like 4 or 5 places. I needed to put this extensions down as my wooden made wing bends a bunch, so it needed that to stay straight. You could say that my 2nd element is touching the first then and be zero points? My understanding is there should be a gap to let some air go in to go under that 2nd element to make it more effective. Thought I should test the duct tape method to see.

 

I have the extra 10 points and do not mind paying the 20 points for my "wing". I feel that if the rules say a wing is 10 points and I am getting charged 20 then I should call it a a dual element wings, which just sounds stupid. 

 

I would think we would need to define a single element vs dual element if we are charging more points for one than the other. That should go for all rules that tech decides to charge more for. They have to keep a log of these items and make them available to the members. We have to adjust the rulebook to reflect what tech decides.

 

I also think if we are going to be charging points for X or Y then we need to define those and have a rulebook that can be followed. I do not like a longer rulebook, but maybe when they go to add a rules for dual element vs single element they will see that is really does not matter and does not make sense and then call all wings as 10 points. That is my hope, that logic and simplicity will win out in the end. We will see. The adding of the wording 3 core into the radiator rules does not give me much hope though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Technical Advisory Committee

OK this one bugs me a little bit. The series has allowed wings as an aerodynamic improvement. It would seem in a budget endurance series that would be a single element wing. So you have gone out and developed a dual element wing and now you are complaining that there’s no value in the rules on it. Why didn’t you just stay within the spirit of the series and stay with a simple wing and move on? In a sense you have created this controversy that you are now complaining about. I guess we could add a note to the bccr that says wing xx points single element only. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, collinskl1 said:

Thought question: Would it be better for the rules to specify different point values for single and dual element wings, or to only allow single element wings?

I would think different points, if that is where the rules want to go, though I do think it should just a wing is a wing and element numbers do not matter.

 

I do think saying single element only is bad, as it can make teams go to EC from other series and be a barrier to entry. We already have enough of that already. I team might see single element wings only and think they are not allowed and not come to the series.

 

This is 20 points. Cost $89.

spacer.png

 

This is 10 points and cost $800+.

spacer.png

 

I think both should be allowed and should be 10 points. That is my point.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rodger Coan-Burningham said:

OK this one bugs me a little bit. The series has allowed wings as an aerodynamic improvement. It would seem in a budget endurance series that would be a single element wing. So you have gone out and developed a dual element wing and now you are complaining that there’s no value in the rules on it. Why didn’t you just stay within the spirit of the series and stay with a simple wing and move on? In a sense you have created this controversy that you are now complaining about. I guess we could add a note to the bccr that says wing xx points single element only. 

I took a weekend and made a 2nd element with hand tools and my own creativity. I was actually pretty proud of myself and how it came out and enjoyed making it. Are you saying that we should not be doing that anymore? That is where the series started and what had me come in the first place. Being able to create a better race car on a budget and rewarded for it.

 

To me a wing is wing. I did not ever think a dual element wing would be more points than a single element wing in that both are called a wing. There is nothing in the rules that stated otherwise and when I go through tech it was the first I had ever heard of it. If things like this happened to me then I have to think I can not be the only one that has a hidden secret rulebook applied to them that is not in the real BCCR rulebook. I have printed out the BCCR and have it with me when building and making my cars. That is the real issue here and problem. I have the extra 10 points and will take it, no issue. The issue is it should never be at the tech line and get extra points for something that is not in the rulebook at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rodger Coan-Burningham said:

OK so are your opinion is the rules should say wing, whatever you can find 10 points?

Sure, why not? We do not allow carbon fiber so that rules out all the high end wings.

 

If we do not have a rule on cord width, which is really what matters, then why have a rule on number of elements. Did you see my first post with examples of my two wings that I have and the downforce they have. They both do the same basic thing with the same basic downforce levels and drag.

 

If someone wants to add more elements, why not, in reality it adds more drag anyway. If we do not limit cord width why limit elements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...