Educate Me On Hood Scoop Rules!

[38flattie]

Our hood scoop design was just questioned, so I got on the phone to get clarification of its legality. I'm waiting to hear back.

In /BFCC or /BGCC, what are the rules for a hood scoop? In the rulebook, there is a definition of a scoop, but the definitions first line is:

A hood scoop is a functional air intake device used on full body, un-blown vehicles, where allowed.

So, where is the definition for a scoop to be used on a blown vehicle? Does the 11" height, and the provision that the scoop not extend to the windshield still apply? Is this info in the rules, and I've simply missed it?

[Tman]

Who questioned it? One of us idiots on the net or somebody that matters?

[38flattie]

A very succeesful team asked asked about it, as did Joe Timney and Bobby Sykes.

I'm waiting on an official ruling, but I wondered how everyone was interpreting the rules for blown cars.

[manta22]

Not me-- I only asked about its effect on the center of pressure. I haven't the slightest idea of what the rules are for CC.

Regards, Neil  Tucson, AZ

[Steve Walters]

The reason why the wording is like it is, is because a hood scoop is a way of giving a naturally aspirated car a small amount of boost.  There is a trade off between the advantage of boost it gives, and the loss of aero's they produce.

 Noses start to wrinkle when the scoop is designed for aero advantage and not boost performance.  In CC classes it reads that streamlining ahead of the coul is permitted, I think your scoop is just a little bit behind the coul. 

But Mike M would be the official word.  I doubt that there isn't anybody who has built or is building a LS car that hasn't lost a nights sleep designing the ultamit hood scoop.        

Steve   

[38flattie]

I don't have a rulebook with me, so my memory may be wrong. I believe in comp coupe, that the streamling is up to and including the cowl, correct?

[Stan Back]

It includes the cowl, but perhaps not back of the cowl -- as in the windshield area.

[dw230]

Astute observation Stan. But, once again the SCTA rules have let us down. The hood scoop rule applies to UN-BLOWN cars as Buddy points out. At this point it would be apporiate to insert the "if it doesn't say you can do it, you can't" wording from 1970. With that said there is a vision issue and the extending of the aero piece, we can't call it a hood scoop because it is a blown car.

We will all eagerly await a decision, not from this web site but from the SCTA.

DW

[Steve Walters]

Geeeeees! Thats a darn good memory, I read it from the rule book and forgot all the wording while going from my brain to my fingers.   

Steve

[38flattie]

Haha! It's probably because I have a vested interest!

[WZ JUNK]

This is the same design that I built for Hooley's #974 Studebaker.  Sumner and I designed it with information provide by Tom Brukland and John Burk.  This information is available on Sumner's site at http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/bvillecar/bville-scoop%20info-1.html  I also used this information to design Buddy's scoop for the flat cad.

The first year that we took Hooley's Studebaker to Bonneville, an official (un named at this time) showed up at our pit and said that there was a complaint about the hood scoop.  He started to measure the scoop but then said, " This is a blown engine in competition coupe class, there is no restriction on the size and shape"  or something similar but that was the content of his thought.  So we do have a history on this subject.  When I started working on this design I fully intended to take advantage of anything I can do to help the car but I do not intend to cheat or disregard a rule.  I knew that the design had been approved in the past,  currently there are other competition coupe cars running with similar scoops. 

So thats my thoughts.

John

[jl222]

Astute observation Stan. But, once again the SCTA rules have let us down. The hood scoop rule applies to UN-BLOWN cars as Buddy points out. At this point it would be apporiate to insert the "if it doesn't say you can do it, you can't" wording from 1970. With that said there is a vision issue and the extending of the aero piece, we can't call it a hood scoop because it is a blown car.

We will all eagerly await a decision, not from this web site but from the SCTA.

DW

  Dan...hope that rule never goes in the book as the 222 Camaro has a foward facing hood scoop but follows the
unblown rules. I never noticed the [for unblown].
  So what is allowed for blown? And if the ''if it doesn't say it'' was in rule book, mean we could be protested?

   For competition coupe pg. 67 ''streamling ahead of and including the cowl''. What exactly does the SCTA consider the cowl area to be? On my 29 roadster I considered the area behind the firewall back to the dash and where the doors hung to be the cowl.

  Looks like 38flattie is legal...but.

          JL222

[38flattie]

John, you're correct. However, I don't find 'cowl' defined in the rules, so where it ends is open to interpretation.


John and I discussed this prior to John fabbing it up. There are several record setting cars that ran similar configurations, with no issue. The rules on this have changed very little, even with the 2013 wording.

The rule for scoops is a  poorly written rule, as it does not address hood scoops for blown cars. It appears that the rule assumes scoops are ONLY ran on 'un-blown vehicles'.

I'm going to submit a change to the rule, or at least the wording, next year. I must/might be the only one that has an issue with it, but it could sure be less ambiguous than it is.

The comp Coupe class is designed to be the fastest door-slammer class, so why would blown vehicles be hampered with rules written for un-blown cars?

If anyone has any suggestions on the wording/change, post them up or PM me.

[Stan Back]

I tend to believe the cowl stops where the dashboard begins.

[Nortonist 592]

I'd build it just as you are doing and enter it as a motorcycle.  Seems you can get anything past the tech.  Even get it certified if you run a record.