As series director I am probably going to change the aero rules to make them simpler and to make it easier to be able to buy a wing and air dam off the shelf. A study by me found that it was hard to find a wing that met the SR rules witout going custom.

The rules for SR will be reduced pending approval to: The airfoil cannot extend past the rear bumper (although the endplates won't be counted as that), the wing cannot be wider than the rear fenders nor taller than the roof. A single element wing of any width can be used. Double element wings are not allowed. Gurney flaps are ok. End plates must be less than 100 sqare inches total. The wing can be adjustable for angle of attack only. The wing must not be moveable while the vehicle is in motion either activly or passively. The wing must mount to the body or chassis and not the suspension.

To make the rules easier to enforce and to encorage more radical, eye catching cars, I am probably going to make side skirts, rear skirts and front airdams open to any aftermarket aerokit that can be bought off the shelf by anyone who participates in the series. The only regulations are that no part of the bodykit can be lower than the rim and no customization of the airdam to make it stick out longer than the basic shape that it comes in. Air fences can be added to the side skirts but they must be flat and cannot extend past the widest part of the body or the tires whichever comes first. No rear tunnels or diffusers are allowed. The bottom of the car past the bell pan must remain unaltered.

The belly pan must be within 1/4" of being flush to the level of the front airdam and flat. It cannot extend past the front wheel opening nor hang lower than the bottom of the rim. No diffusers or tunnels are allowed in the belly pan.

A splitter can be added but it must extend no further than 4" from the unaltered leading edge of the airdam/front fasica. No metal splitters are allowed.

I strongly belive that more racy looking cars are going to catch more media and fan attention and bring more people, and expousre to the series, helping it grow and be more interesting to the compact car demographic. This should help make the series easier to market when looking for series support and sponsers.

Look for changes like that.

That would be nice to see the series grow. I'll be looking forward to these changes.

The rules for SR will be reduced pending approval to...

PLEASE tell me you're talking about wing and aero rules for SRX, not SE-R Cup?!? If you're talking about wings, aero, Lexan, custom control arms, and sheiz like that for SER Cup, well, I don't even know how to put my response politely other than to say "stop the madness!!"

If this is the direction that "SR" is headed long term then I'm out... - GA

PLEASE tell me you're talking about wing and aero rules for SRX, not SE-R Cup?!? If you're talking about wings, aero, Lexan, custom control arms, and sheiz like that for SER Cup, well, I don't even know how to put my response politely other than to say "stop the madness!!"
If this is the direction that "SR" is headed long term then I'm out... - GA

I am not chaging the suspension rules.

The aero rules won't give any more speed advantage over the current rules. I am changing them to make it easier to find a wing for sale for your car and to make the car look better.

I am making the rules less restrictive in places where it doest matter as far as speed goes.

Lexan side windows won't make your car faster if it is already at the minimum weight, sure you could ballest the 7 or so lb difference in a good place but really side windows weigh nearly nothing as is. The advantage would be about the same as not eating or drinking and taking a shit and a piss before getting in the car. Lexan windows are easy and cheap to make at home. I made mine with a jig saw and an hours labor. It was way cheaper than new stock glass.

A wing much bigger than the old rules will simply make the car slower. Note that the only real difference is that the max height of the airfoil is slightliy higher and the chord is now not regulated. If you wanted to run a wing, its now easier and cheaper to find one on e-bay or from a mail order house.

You don't have to look for months to find a wing, then handmake brackets for it like I had to to stay withing the rules.

You don't have to add an aerokit, adding one won't make the car any faster. The front airdam/splitter rule is the same, just I got rid of 4" and so many inches past some obscure part of the chassis. Specing only cheap comercialy avalible aero kits and airdams insures that someone will not be able to custom make something within the rules that is very expensive yet eeks out an advantage.

These rules mostly effect the cosmetics of the cars and not the speed. The parts of the rules that do affect performance are mostly unchanged. Making the cars look better and more like real race cars ala Speed World Challange or USTCC will make the series more easy to sell to the media and to contingency sponsers. More contingency is better for the racers. More media coverage is better for NASA, the series and the racers. With exposure, its easier to put together a program.

Not chosing to add lexan windows or aerokit won't make your car slower, I assure you if your car is already prepped to the limit of the older rules.

Making the cars look better and more like real race cars ala Speed World Challange or USTCC

I don't think we should close the difference between SWC/USTCC (top level) and the SE-R Cup (the duct tape standard in racing) that much.

Mike, basically the changes you're talking about are going to have people with existing cars spend more money.

I'm not saying anything for or against the proposed changes, just that you have to consider the cost to people that already race in the series. Not everyone wants to have fat contingencies and big dollar looking cars, but just have fun racing Sentras.

hey mike
could nerf bars be added to bumpers?
i don't think the fiberglass could take too many bumps without cracking.
do you have to use factory bumper supports?

-chuck

i don't think the fiberglass could take too many bumps without cracking.

Hmmm.. worrying about bumpers cracking from too many bumps by a driver that hasn't raced yet... glad I got out of demolition derby when I did! :)

Are the rules for SRX as well?

I have already began construction on my front air splitter / tray / diffuser / whatchamacallit and it's aluminum... :(

Mike, you and I apparently have a fundamental difference in opinion on the philosophy of the SR class.

I am looking for a fun, easy-to-build, less expensive class to race in, very much like SCCA IT with minimal more-common-sense changes. I don't want wings, I don't want aero, I don't want Lexan. I want a class where EVERYTHING - save for safety items - is a bolt-on affair, something that someone can do in their garage with minimal hand tools. What you are proposing now require fabrication skills and special tools. Where does the madness end?

Did I miss something? When did rear wings become part of the philosophy of SR? Who among us believes that the addition of a rear wing on these cars does NOT add a certain level of complexity to chassis development and setup? What's the cost of that? A rear wing decisively becomes a competitive advantage - regardless of the cost or design - thus becoming a de facto requirement for the class. Even worse, if you spec a neutered, ineffecient rear wing, it may actually be a DISADVANTAGE, thus costing folks money to figure that out. Either way, it's a loss.

Lexan? Mike, you and I both know that the glass in these cars - especially the NX - weighs *significantly* more than 7 pounds. And we both know that it is a significant advantage to move that weight from around the level of your ears to the level of your sphincter. I don't care to do the calcs, but it most certainly lowers the CG of the car advantageously, thereby becoming a de facto requirement for the class.

Aero kits - any aero kits - cost money. What's the resulting effect on center of pressure, thus setup? All for looks? Do you really think any resulting contingency money will overcome the costs of these items?

I think comparison to World Challenge is a poor idea. The differences between SR and SRX are in terms of mods; one is a simple entry-level class, the other a full out mods class. The difference between World Challenge Touring and GT, on the other hand, is really nothing but a comparable preparation level but differences in performance. To compare SE-R Cup to WC would mean a migration to an SRX and SRX Light model, where you'd have, for instance, common prep rules but two different power-to-weight limitations. I *really* don't believe that's a good way to go.

Finally, one other consideration for your "less expensive" position: these additions make the car unable to be run with any other group than SE-R Cup, most notably SCCA Improved Touring. Sure, I understand that should not be a major driving point for the rules, but for a class that is purported to be a low-cost entry point it is a significant advantage to be able to get more track time and enjoy your car in more events other than the X number of events that SE-R Cup puts on.

As for looks, think of it this way: if you're running both classes on the track at the same time, the SRX class will attract the attention of folks, but a simple SR group will motivate them to participate. And, I really don't see how a class of stock-looking vehicles will make a significant difference to someone interested in sponsoring a series.

SRX? Have at it, baby, go for the full-out bling-bling. But I wholeheartedly recommend that you keep SR as simple and straightforward as possible, otherwise you risk losing many competitors.

Greg

I don't think we should close the difference between SWC/USTCC (top level) and the SE-R Cup (the duct tape standard in racing) that much.

Mike, basically the changes you're talking about are going to have people with existing cars spend more money.

I'm not saying anything for or against the proposed changes, just that you have to consider the cost to people that already race in the series. Not everyone wants to have fat contingencies and big dollar looking cars, but just have fun racing Sentras.
Aero kits will not make your car faster over a car equiped with aero legal under the previous rules airdam splitter, belly pan and wing. If you don't want them you don't have to run them and you won't go any slower.

The changes are for those wishing to upgrade the cars looks and to make it easier and cheaper to find a legal rear wing.

Mike, you and I apparently have a fundamental difference in opinion on the philosophy of the SR class.
I am looking for a fun, easy-to-build, less expensive class to race in, very much like SCCA IT with minimal more-common-sense changes. I don't want wings, I don't want aero, I don't want Lexan. I want a class where EVERYTHING - save for safety items - is a bolt-on affair, something that someone can do in their garage with minimal hand tools. What you are proposing now require fabrication skills and special tools. Where does the madness end?
Did I miss something? When did rear wings become part of the philosophy of SR? Who among us believes that the addition of a rear wing on these cars does NOT add a certain level of complexity to chassis development and setup? What's the cost of that? A rear wing decisively becomes a competitive advantage - regardless of the cost or design - thus becoming a de facto requirement for the class. Even worse, if you spec a neutered, ineffecient rear wing, it may actually be a DISADVANTAGE, thus costing folks money to figure that out. Either way, it's a loss.
Lexan? Mike, you and I both know that the glass in these cars - especially the NX - weighs *significantly* more than 7 pounds. And we both know that it is a significant advantage to move that weight from around the level of your ears to the level of your sphincter. I don't care to do the calcs, but it most certainly lowers the CG of the car advantageously, thereby becoming a de facto requirement for the class.
Aero kits - any aero kits - cost money. What's the resulting effect on center of pressure, thus setup? All for looks? Do you really think any resulting contingency money will overcome the costs of these items?
I think comparison to World Challenge is a poor idea. The differences between SR and SRX are in terms of mods; one is a simple entry-level class, the other a full out mods class. The difference between World Challenge Touring and GT, on the other hand, is really nothing but a comparable preparation level but differences in performance. To compare SE-R Cup to WC would mean a migration to an SRX and SRX Light model, where you'd have, for instance, common prep rules but two different power-to-weight limitations. I *really* don't believe that's a good way to go.
Finally, one other consideration for your "less expensive" position: these additions make the car unable to be run with any other group than SE-R Cup, most notably SCCA Improved Touring. Sure, I understand that should not be a major driving point for the rules, but for a class that is purported to be a low-cost entry point it is a significant advantage to be able to get more track time and enjoy your car in more events other than the X number of events that SE-R Cup puts on.
As for looks, think of it this way: if you're running both classes on the track at the same time, the SRX class will attract the attention of folks, but a simple SR group will motivate them to participate. And, I really don't see how a class of stock-looking vehicles will make a significant difference to someone interested in sponsoring a series.
SRX? Have at it, baby, go for the full-out bling-bling. But I wholeheartedly recommend that you keep SR as simple and straightforward as possible, otherwise you risk losing many competitors.
Greg
Rear wings were previously legal under the exsisting rules. I just changed the height restriction and chord restrictions slightly because it was hard to find a cheap wing off the shelf with the legal chord. I didnt want people to have to buy a custom or modify a wing to meet the rules, just buy it and put it on. It was also hard to find an off the shelf legal wing for the NX so I made slight changes so that people who want to add a wing can do so more cheaply.

Also I made the changes so that somone could run a cheap off the shelf production airdam without having to resort to doing anything custom. The belly pan, height and splittter size part of the rules, where it does make a performance difference will remain the same.

A commercialy built aerokit will not help. I reviewed the popular kits with one of my aerodynamists friends who happens to be an engineer and a professor on aerodynamics at UCLA and he came to the same conclusions. The side skirts and rear skirts found on comericaly avalble aero kits for the B13/14/15 will not help much and posibly hurt aero some.

Sure a custom kit can help but I specificaly have not allowed that. Anyway center of pressure is not an issue in make these cars faster, its how your try to rettach the boundery layer.

These rules are not manditory, you don't have to do any of these. Adding comsetics past the previous legal level of things will not make your car faster. With my new rules it will be cheaper to have a rear wing and some sort of airdam/belly pan.

Tom Paule, the winningest cup driver by far has an ugly car with nearly no aero. He has long since destroyed the stuff I orginaly built for him. He still wins.

I decided to make these changes because I had difficulty getting a legal rear wing for my car and had to heavily modify one. I was trying to advise a few people on a cheap legal wing for a low price and I could not find one. Either the chord was too long or the wing was slightly too high. I tried to get side windows for my street car and I could not get them as they were discontinued.

I had to come up with alternatives.

You car currently lacks a rear wing, belly pan and front splitter that were alreadfy legal under the present rules. These parts are the ones that make a difference, not the chages that I am going to make. I don't see why you are protesting this when you don't currently have your car built anywhere close to the limit of the exsisting rules.

So with regard to the front aero would it be an either/or rule so that cars built to the old rules would still be legal? I'm trying to get a handle on what I should do with the front of the NX. If the old rules will still be valid, I'd like to get a start since the offseason always seems to fly by.

Will the rear fender measurement be taken where the wing is mounted or above the rear wheels? Thanks.
Jason S.

Lexan? Mike, you and I both know that the glass in these cars - especially the NX - weighs *significantly* more than 7 pounds. And we both know that it is a significant advantage to move that weight from around the level of your ears to the level of your sphincter. I don't care to do the calcs, but it most certainly lowers the CG of the car advantageously, thereby becoming a de facto requirement for the class.
I think the lexan is limited to the side windows only. Since near everyone takes out the front side glass for the race, I don't think there is much difference in weight, ESPECIALLY on a 2 door Sentra or NX (the windows are like 10" wide and triangular). Personally, I wanted to have some sort of helmet air circulation system and lexan rear windows makes this really easy.

Whatever, guys. I want a tube-frame chassis 'cause the replacement parts are cheaper, but that's not really within the philosophy of the class. At least, I don't think it is...

Your toys, your choice. Enjoy.

That's a bit of a slippery slope, don't you think Greg?

I really don't see how this creates a competitive advantage. I really doubt that anyone with the stock glass still there will run to the nearest lexan dealer to replace the rear side windows and shave time off their laps. I fail to see how lexan side windows for a 3 lb savings really matters in the grand scheme of things.

Mike, maybe you should require that the side windows be the same thickness as stock or something to keep total parity. This way, the only reason you would ever do this is for ventilation or to replace hard to find stock windows.

Besides, the B14 has stock aero on the sides.

Whatever, guys. I want a tube-frame chassis 'cause the replacement parts are cheaper, but that's not really within the philosophy of the class. At least, I don't think it is...
Your toys, your choice. Enjoy.
If you want to get technical, I think your expensive custom fabricated rear roll bar is not in the spirt of the rules nor is it good for the class in the way you see it. Neither are one off custom fabricated strut tubes your car sports.

These things are far mre expensive, far more out of reach for most people and make a bigger performance impact than homemade lexan side windows and bolt on comercial aerokits.

All of the guys on the west coast use off the shelf suspension componets that any racer can buy from one of 4 suppliers that don't require extensive testing and fabrication to use.

I don't think your pro built to the limits engine is exactly low cost, bang for the buck either.

I don't really see why you care so much anyway because your car isnt built to the limit of the current rules anyway. To my knowlege you don't have a rear wing, a front airdam, a splitter or a belly pan, all of which are currently legal under SR rules.

So with regard to the front aero would it be an either/or rule so that cars built to the old rules would still be legal? I'm trying to get a handle on what I should do with the front of the NX. If the old rules will still be valid, I'd like to get a start since the offseason always seems to fly by.
Will the rear fender measurement be taken where the wing is mounted or above the rear wheels? Thanks.
Jason S.
At the widest part of the cars body. Same as the old rules. The new and old rules are nearly the same so a car built to the old rules would esily be ok under the new rules.

Thanks for the clarification Mike. So the common aero kit would be in addition to the current "7.5.3 Any bumper cover, front spoiler, or airdam". Thanks again!

Jason S.

That's a bit of a slippery slope, don't you think Greg?

Actually, what I think you meant to say, Rockwood, is not "slippery slope" but "hypocrisy".

Au contrare, it's a PERFECT example of how improperly-written and nebulously-administered rulesets can result in unintended consequences and expense. Due to the total lack of reasonable performance parts for this car (one could easily describe it in much less polite terms) - and due to the wide-open loopholes that SCCA wrote into their rulesets (sound familiar?) - I was forced to fabricate such a rear swaybar in order to be competitive with the Hondas. Had SCCA the foresight to write their rules in such a way to avoid such blatant expense, I would have been at the front of the line to support them, all while probably designing and fabricating my own bolt-on components. As an alternative, I took the much-less-expensive route, that being one of off-the-shelf components and a welder.

However, in a one-marque class that is purported to be low-cost, there is no excuse. What you are proposing is nothing more that self-proclaimed "posage", the desire to "look good" and is, in fact, in direct contrast with stated desires.

Nice try, but way off-base. - Greg