Timothy G. Elliott Posted November 6, 2021 Report Share Posted November 6, 2021 (edited) Just watched Dana's latest video, please tell me I can still use my duct tape across my grill with no points? It is plastic and would crack and break into a million little pieces if hit, so I'm hoping there is a consideration for taping off the grill opening. With that in mind it helps aero and regulates temp well. Just remove a strip if more cooling is needed. I understand that building a wing or splitter of tape should be the same as adding a wing or splitter for points. What do you all think? Edited November 6, 2021 by Timothy G. Elliott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyKid Posted November 6, 2021 Report Share Posted November 6, 2021 This is my petition from last year that was rejected. Date Submitted * MM 02 / DD 26 / YYYY 2021 Identify the issue, as you perceive it: * Excessive use of duct-tape to create parts is effectively free material and is not within the written rule, nor the intent Identify, if possible, your understanding of why the current rule or process was initiated and put into place: * Duct tape, and other tape is allowed to attach things to other things. Propose a solution or revised rule: * 4.7.2: • Hardware, fasteners, and materials used to attach things to other things (nuts, bolts, screws, rivets, duct tape, bailing wire, zip ties, JB Weld, etc.) Hardware, fasteners, and materials used to create parts or body panels shall be charged material points or points per the fixed point list. Tape of body panel seams or to cover holes will be allowed for no points, unless the tape become integral to the structural integrity of the panel. Provide a list of the positive changes and/or rationale for implementing the proposed solution or revised rule: * This will better clarify the existing intent of the rule of which a liberal interpretation is being taken advantage of. Any additional information: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy G. Elliott Posted November 6, 2021 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2021 I like it Lucky Kid, that does clarify a lot, it would be nice to have this written in the rules! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted November 6, 2021 Report Share Posted November 6, 2021 I doubt tech will worry about taped over grills. Just call it ducting to the radiator, that's free anyway. Just don't build an entire fastback, hood, or fenders out of tape and expanda-foam and you'll be just fine. I like this new clarification. I was never a fan of being able to build entire structures to improve aero/shed weight by using tape/foam/cardboard for 0 points. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy G. Elliott Posted November 6, 2021 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2021 Good explanation Ian!. And I agree 100 percent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petawawarace Posted November 7, 2021 Report Share Posted November 7, 2021 4 hours ago, LuckyKid said: This is my petition from last year that was rejected. Date Submitted * MM 02 / DD 26 / YYYY 2021 Identify the issue, as you perceive it: * Excessive use of duct-tape to create parts is effectively free material and is not within the written rule, nor the intent Identify, if possible, your understanding of why the current rule or process was initiated and put into place: * Duct tape, and other tape is allowed to attach things to other things. Propose a solution or revised rule: * 4.7.2: • Hardware, fasteners, and materials used to attach things to other things (nuts, bolts, screws, rivets, duct tape, bailing wire, zip ties, JB Weld, etc.) Hardware, fasteners, and materials used to create parts or body panels shall be charged material points or points per the fixed point list. Tape of body panel seams or to cover holes will be allowed for no points, unless the tape become integral to the structural integrity of the panel. Provide a list of the positive changes and/or rationale for implementing the proposed solution or revised rule: * This will better clarify the existing intent of the rule of which a liberal interpretation is being taken advantage of. Any additional information: We’re you the team that Dana was talking about that was going to build something silly? Just curious what that was? I think this is the right way to go about it, but I’m also just curious to know what would have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Advisory Committee Ray Franck Posted November 7, 2021 Technical Advisory Committee Report Share Posted November 7, 2021 Peta it won't gonna be silly I guarantee that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petawawarace Posted November 7, 2021 Report Share Posted November 7, 2021 14 minutes ago, Ray Franck said: Peta it won't gonna be silly I guarantee that. I meant it in a good way. Wild a better word? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyKid Posted November 7, 2021 Report Share Posted November 7, 2021 3 hours ago, petawawarace said: We’re you the team that Dana was talking about that was going to build something silly? Just curious what that was? I think this is the right way to go about it, but I’m also just curious to know what would have been. No, it wasn't us. I still have an open tech desk ticket from then asking for clarification as well. I'm glad it's clarified now and I'm glad it was before a lot more teams wasted a lot of time building something just to get it banned. The decisions CCES make lever an emmence amount of spend both financially and in terms of build time. It's important that this is respected. Sloppy rules, non-enforcement and loopholes need to be addressed timely. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enginerd Posted November 7, 2021 Report Share Posted November 7, 2021 (edited) 11 hours ago, petawawarace said: Were you the team that Dana was talking about that was going to build something silly? Just curious what that was? I think this is the right way to go about it, but I’m also just curious to know what would have been. Ray came by to chat at Road America about this issue and mentioned the team (which I won't name because I don't know if it was said in confidence). He said that they requested a formal "yea that's OK" to use fire foam and tape to make 'something that would improve the performance', obviously to piggyback and expand on what visceral has done with their tape. I couldn't understand how anyone would think that fire foam would be free if used for something other than fireproofing. The word 'foam' is used in 3 places in the rulebook and in one place only talks about sealing holes in the firewall (the other places are foam collars not being allowed and foam with fuel cells). Anyway, I'm glad ChampCar has come to their senses about this after I made a thread and wrote emails to several board members, and after @LuckyKid wrote a petition which I strongly supported, and after those efforts the status quo remained in place. But now, finally, some beautiful team threatened to abuse these tape et. al. allowances to the point where ChampCar had to act, and for that, I salute you, mysterious top tier big budget team. I really like Dana's general position to stick to the rulebook as written, and in this case sticking to the rulebook makes this excessive use of tape no longer zero points. Edited November 7, 2021 by enginerd 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy G. Elliott Posted November 7, 2021 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2021 8 minutes ago, enginerd said: Ray came by to chat at Road America about this issue and mentioned the team (which I won't name because I don't know if it was said in confidence). He said that they requested a formal "yea that's OK" to use fire foam and tape to make 'something that would improve the performance', obviously to piggyback and expand on what visceral has done with their tape. I couldn't understand how anyone would think that fire foam would be free if used for something other than fireproofing. The word 'foam' is used in 3 places in the rulebook and in one place only talks about sealing holes in the firewall (the other places are foam collars not being allowed and foam with fuel cells). Anyway, I'm glad ChampCar has come to their senses about this after I made a thread and wrote emails to several board members, and after @LuckyKid wrote a petition which I strongly supported, and after those efforts the status quo remained in place. But now, finally, some beautiful team threatened to abuse these tape et. al. allowances to the point where ChampCar had to act, and for that, I salute you, mysterious top tier big budget team. I really like Dana's general position to stick to the rulebook as written, and in this case sticking to the rulebook makes this excessive use of tape no longer zero points. The key is excessive use! I like it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMiskoe Posted November 8, 2021 Report Share Posted November 8, 2021 How about a simple rule that states if the "free" item is used to create a modification that would otherwise cost points, the "free" item is no longer free. Yes Tape is free, but not when you build an air dam out of it. Yes mufflers are free but not when you make one that is under-tray shaped. Yes you can move a required bulkhead, but not you may not remove the existing bulkhead, rebuild one from new material then claim the original material for something else. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.