Question about coverted FC's

I have been lost in all the threads about F 1000. I know there was a intent for this class to be coverted continentals. I realize the class rules drifted away slightly. I have not had time to read or interpet the rules yet so I had a few quetions mainly regarding body rules. I am kicking around converting my 96 Euroswift.

1. Are converted FC cars side pod ok for F1000, or do they need to be bigger and higher?

2. What about air inlet for the radiators, My car has the under teh nose in front for ducting, would that be llowed or would the whole body have tobe changed?

3. What about homologation?, can you rehomolgate a exsisting car?

Hopefully Sean reads this thread,
Thanks for the help

Darren Brown

Darren,
1) As the F1000 committee wrote the rules, your sidepods would be legal. Upcoming tweaks to the final package may require revisiting your configuration, but I think you'll be okay.
2) I'm not totally familiar with your set up but if it works in FC, you should be okay (that was our intent, anyway.)
3) I'm fairly certain you need to rehomologate the car. Not a big deal from what I hear but I hope to have first-hand knowledge very soon.

Hope that helps!

When we converted our FC to FF we sent via certifield mail to Topeka, the original homologation certificate along with a couple of current photos from various angles and we were issued a new homologation cert. for FF.

Darren:

Your sidepods will be fine. Your radiator ducting will be OK. Yes, you must re-homologate the chassis as an F1000, but this will be purely a paper transaction.

Dave

Mike thanks for the repley and information

Another question about side pods. Is there any min. or max. size to them? Mine are fairly small in height and width, much like a 90 or 92 VD.


As far as air ducting goes, there is a opening under the nose behind the wing on the very front of the car. The floor is raised under my feet to allow the air to duct in to theside pods.

Are the rules official yet, and published?

just trying to get a idea on what all I would need to modify to do this.

Thanks,
Darren

Just saw the other replies, Thanks a bunch for the additional information.

I have a second frame that I am going to start working on. I was torn between building it into a DSR or the F 1000. I really like the F 1000 idea the more I look into it.


Thanks guys
Darren

At the track, and at repair time, you will like the lack of bodywork on an F1000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darren Brown

3. What about homologation?, can you rehomolgate a exsisting car?



Darren Brown

---

Just contact the Tech Dept at SCCA headquarters & they will send you the forms for homologation. They are self explanatory.

Yeah, what everyone else said. Your only possible issue w/ sidepods is keeping your engine cool. Can you send me a pic of your car?

seanoconnellmail@yahoo.com


BTW- Homoligation is no big deal. Send in the form, a check, get the paperwork.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darren Brown

Are the rules official yet, and published?

Thanks,
Darren

---

The final specs will be in the next FasTrack (due out November 20) - this is what will be in the 2007 GCR. If you are converting an existing legal FC and you don't change the bodywork or floor/undertray significantly, you will be OK. There are some changes from the spec in the October FasTrack, but they should not adversely impact anyone working to those rules.

Dave

Dave,
Any chance of a sneak peak at the final package?

O.K., since Mike asked nicely, I have uploaded the spec as a PDF (F1000 - Final Spec.PDF). However, all the debating is done. What you see is what you get (unless someone on the CRB decides something must change in the next few days).

Dave

Thank You Dave. I think these rules are quite good - simple and useable.

Thanks, Dave. I apologize for the impending onslaught of questions from others but let me ask a couple simple ones:
-"a maximum of four 75mm x 1215mm rub blocks are allowed." Is this the maximum size of the blocks or the only allowable size?
-I assume H.1-D-8 limits the floorpan/undertray from extending beyond the sidepod by more than 25mm? If so, this is a much cleaner way of accomplishing what the committee was trying to do.
-In a previous discussion, someone suggested a Ducati or Aprilia engine but was shot down because F1000 is for 4 cylinders only. I don't see that restriction here.
-Maximum height of the rollover bar is unlimited. What if that bar is shrouded by an aerodynamic aid, ala Stohr and possibly Phoenix?

Thanks again to the F/SRAC, CRB, and BOD for taking our concept and outline of F1000 rules and fleshing them out and breathing life into them. Thanks also to Richard Pare, Art Smith, Rennie Clayton, Steve Lathrop, and a bunch of others for providing such in-depth analysis and "what-ifs" to our proposal. You all had some impact on the final product (like it or hate it!)

Now buy some sunglasses, dammit.

Dave;

H1.D.8 needs cleaning up a bit or sometime in the future there is going to be some confusion by new techies and stewards.

The width restriction is stated as being solely related to the chassis - I somehow doubt that anyone is going to make their chassis that wide! It should be stated as a restriction of the undertray, bellypan, floorpan and/or sidepod bottom. ( If we are going to be fussy, the same critique goes for the undersides height rule - something beside "chassis" should be used). You might get away with it as long as a definition for "chassis' is never added to the Glossary, but it still has a connotation that is not what you intend to mean.

Secondly: Does that "extra" width pertain to every longitudinal point reletive to the bodywork immediately inboard of that point of the undertray? If so, many conversions will be illegal - note on Sean's car that the sidepod skins taper inwards well ahead of the leading edge of the rear tires, yet the undertray stays wide. Hard to tell exactly from the photos, but it looks like there is definetely in excess of 25mm( 25mm allowance per side for a symmetrical car) of undertray sticking out for a distance from the front of the rear tire.

Granted, you can bypass this rule just by adding a removeable bodywork "skin" down on top of the undertray, but I doubt that making existing cars illegal was your intention.

If it is to mean that the extra width is only reletive to the point of maximum width of the bodywork, then all will be OK with almost all cars, but as written, it is hard to determine the meaning.

Third: Is that width allowance in excess of the 150 cm allowed for the body? IE - assuming that the body goes to max allowed width, can the undertray be 50mm wider (160cm?)?

D.4. - rearrange the sentance structure slightly - put the "except impact attenuation structures" after the "or any panel licked by the sirstream.....", - as written it is hard to tell whether or not the "or any panels" is part of the "except" reference.

Thanks for finally getting rid of the reference to venturis!

I gather that getting rid of the sidepod 20cm height rule was on purpose? If so, good.

There's probably more, but that's enough for now!

IMO the way it is worded in D.8 it is limited by the maximum bodywork width not by the bodywork width at any specific point so cars like Sean's are legal. Also if the lower surface is not part of the bodywork then the floor/undertray could be 155 cm not 160 cm (50mm = 5 cm).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike B

Thanks, Dave. I apologize for the impending onslaught of questions from others

---

No need to apologize!

Quote:

---

but let me ask a couple simple ones:
-"a maximum of four 75mm x 125mm rub blocks are allowed." Is this the maximum size of the blocks or the only allowable size?

---

Good point. The intent is that these are maximum dimensions. We'll fix it.

Quote:

---

-I assume H.1-D-8 limits the floorpan/undertray from extending beyond the sidepod by more than 25mm? If so, this is a much cleaner way of accomplishing what the committee was trying to do.

---

That is correct - 25mm each side is what is expected, although I suppose someone could choose to distribute the 50mm unevenly (but why would they do that?). Also, see my answer to a related question below.

Quote:

---

-In a previous discussion, someone suggested a Ducati or Aprilia engine but was shot down because F1000 is for 4 cylinders only. I don't see that restriction here.

---

The previous answer about the engines being limited to exactly 4 cylinders was incorrect.

Quote:

---

-Maximum height of the rollover bar is unlimited. What if that bar is shrouded by an aerodynamic aid, ala Stohr and possibly Phoenix?

---

It is pretty well established that shrouds and padding don't count.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

Dave;

H1.D.8 needs cleaning up a bit or sometime in the future there is going to be some confusion by new techies and stewards.

The width restriction is stated as being solely related to the chassis - I somehow doubt that anyone is going to make their chassis that wide! It should be stated as a restriction of the undertray, bellypan, floorpan and/or sidepod bottom. ( If we are going to be fussy, the same critique goes for the undersides height rule - something beside "chassis" should be used). You might get away with it as long as a definition for "chassis' is never added to the Glossary, but it still has a connotation that is not what you intend to mean.

---

If this becomes a problem (which I do not foresee happening), we'll take care of it.

Quote:

---

Secondly: ...

If it is to mean that the extra width is only reletive to the point of maximum width of the bodywork, then all will be OK with almost all cars, but as written, it is hard to determine the meaning.

---

As noted in the answers above, that is correct.

Quote:

---

Third: Is that width allowance in excess of the 150 cm allowed for the body? IE - assuming that the body goes to max allowed width, can the undertray be 50mm wider (160cm?)?

---

The intent was that the maximum or 150cm includes the floor pan/undertray, but that is not properly covered now because the GCR makes a distinction between the undertray and the bodywork. We'll fix it.

Quote:

---

D.4. - rearrange the sentance structure slightly - put the "except impact attenuation structures" after the "or any panel licked by the sirstream.....", - as written it is hard to tell whether or not the "or any panels" is part of the "except" reference.

---

Yes, it would be better that way, but the intent is to forbid CF except for impact attenuation structures.

Quote:

---

Thanks for finally getting rid of the reference to venturis!

---

It was already gone a month ago.

Quote:

---

I gather that getting rid of the sidepod 20cm height rule was on purpose? If so, good.

---

Yes, it is intentional.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Mosteller

.....then the floor/undertray could be 155 cm not 160 cm (50mm = 5 cm).

---

Yea, math at the end of a long day is not one of my strong suits!:D


Quote:
-Maximum height of the rollover bar is unlimited. What if that bar is shrouded by an aerodynamic aid, ala Stohr and possibly Phoenix?

It is pretty well established that shrouds and padding don't count.

Actually, in FF, FC, etc, the extra height can be used ONLY if it contains the engine air intake. Since padding is not bodywork, nor (usually, though not an impossibility) a functioning part of the air intake, it is also limited to the given max height. The only place the rules actually state that placement of padding doesn't count is in the determination of the cockpit opening dimensions. Indeed, there is nothing in this rule set that allows extra height for engine air intakes, so it needs to be added in - otherwise the Stohr, etc, are all illegal. Change "C" in the chart to read "Maximum height, excluding engine intake,........."

Quote:
"If this becomes a problem (which I do not foresee happening), we'll take care of it."

Why wait? It is a lot easier to fix now than to have to react to someone taking the rules at face value! This is a prime example of how the lack of accuracy in the wording can allow "rules drift" to happen over time with change in personnell - these rules specificly state "chassis", and somewhere along the line someone will take it to mean exactly what it says.

Quote:
"Third: Is that width allowance in excess of the 150 cm allowed for the body? IE - assuming that the body goes to max allowed width, can the undertray be 50mm wider (160cm?)?

The intent was that the maximum or 150cm includes the floor pan/undertray, but that is not properly covered now because the GCR makes a distinction between the undertray and the bodywork. We'll fix it."

The rule also has another possible interpretation that I know is not what you intend: it could be interpreted to mean that the undertray/floorpan , regardless of the actual width of the bodywork, could be extended out to 50mm wider than the stated maximum allowed body width (the 150cm given in the chart).

Probably the easiest way to solve the issue to to change the "J" in the chart to read : "Maximum body and undersides width behind the front wheels". Using the word "undersides" means that both undertrays and floorpans ( AND bodywork that is below the floorpan) are included in this max width rule - if you only stated "body and undertray" , then one can use the floorpan to circumvent the intent and be legal according to the wording.

Since the intent is to keep the max width of the undersides to be no more than 50mm wider than the bodywork actually used, then rewrite D.8. to something like : " The width of the lower surface of the undersides shall be no more than 50mm wider than the widest point of the actual bodywork".

This still does not preclude the legal use of a horizontal body "skin" that covers the undertray or floorpan out to the max allowed body width - not what you are intending, but still allowable within what the rules actually state. Unfortunately, at the moment I do not see a way to word the rule to prevent that from happening without it being too ambiguous to have any enforceable meaning!

Dave,

Dave,

Dave,

Sorry about the aborted attempts at posting.

I was attempting to find enough time to read the rather voluminous discussion about acceptable chassis fabrication methods but the alotted week proved to be insufficient.

My question is why were aluminum monocoque and steel tube / aluminum semi-monocoque designs deemed unacceptable? Both are within the capabilities of the home builder and yield quite acceptable, safe chassis.

Ken:

The decision was made after MUCH discussion/debate about what was appropriate for the philosophical underpinnings of F1000. If you have a very strong stomach and nothing to do for a few hours, go here: http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15727

Dave

Dave,

I struggled through that entire thread but came away with the impression that the objective was to restrict carbon fiber or, at least, composite tubs. Disappointedly, I guess I was wrong. It totally eliminates the possibility of converting my semi-monocoque formula super vee to the class.

Ken:

Basically, the argument was made that in both cases (composite and monocoque) a significant advantage accrued to them compared to tube frames in stiffness and, thus, ultimate performance. Note, that we couldn't really write separate rules for converted cars and newly contructed cars. So, it wasn't a question of whether a specific conversion such as you SV would have such an advantage.

Dave