F1000 Rules Discussion

[RobLav]

We started this F1000 rules discussion in that long 9 page F1000 thread. I think it's time we started a new one. How about it?

- I can agree to limiting the frames to the tube frame concept, but how about allowing aluminum or body pieces to be attached to it at less than 6" spacing per FC rules?
- A max sized restrictor would provide equalization between 1000cc engines, especially as they get more and more powerful over the years.
- We need a consensus strategic plan - 2-3 years out, and then 4-7 years out.

Any more?

[Brands]

Just a copy of a post I made to the original thread in case it got lost all the way back there!

If I may i'd just like to add to this thread. I'm seriously thinking about building an F1000 car over the next year from an FC car. From my perspective I would like F1000 to be a true 'club racing' formula and therefore restricted to space frame chassis. They are cheaper to build and are easier to repair and modify and home. I'm originally from the UK where I raced a wide variety of open wheel cars. The last car I raced was a Jedi in the UK's National Formula Honda Championship. With half a shoe string budget I ended up the season second in the Champioship. Whilst I'm not a big fan of spec classes the Formula Honda Jedi was the best car I've raced. Weighing in at just 375kg they where pretty quick, super reliable and very easy to work on which is so important for weekend racers.

I suppose my point is that I would rather see a series aimed purely at club racers rather than a 'stepping stone' formula for up and coming drivers which tend to be more expensive to run in. Formula Honda was just such a series and continues to be one of the best championships in the UK and is now re-named Formula Jedi (www.formulajedi.com). I like the idea of standard engines and more open aero regs but that's just where my interest lies.

Thanks
Ben

[Stan Clayton]

On to your rules:

Why restrict the inlet?
How about only allowing unmodified 1000cc motors? Seems people dump tons of money building hot motors (that don't last as long) when stock they put out about 150 rear wheel hp... I just don't see the need to restrict them any further, but do agree that the older 1100cc cars should be included.

All of the newer 1000cc motors have fuel injection- and are available for less than $2,000 all day long (w/ the trans)- I don't see the need to add weight to those cars. Since there are very few F1000s at this point you would be adding weight to almost all of the cars to benefit just a few.
If you want to add a weight penalty allow stock Busa motors and add weight to those cars.


I like the 8 & 10" wheel option. Its really not faster, but its not slower eithor and they sure do look cool. As an added benefit they may last longer. My large set did not seem to wear at all during the ARRC weekend.

You forgot to mention the other F1000 (FS) site-

http://p104.ezboard.com/bformulas


I agree 100% about the brakes and the tub. 900lbs w/ driver? I'm cool w/ that.

I like open aero but understand why Mike wrote the rule... anyone following XSR can see what a mess the aero rule is over there. Whatever we decide, the rule should be very clear and easy to understand. 1" above this for a % of that... no thanks.
If you want to incourage close racing at a minimal cost- keep FC rules. If you want to encourage engineering and development at the expense of equality then open areo up. It is really pretty simple.

Why restrict the inlet?

The answer is surprisingly simple. The Club has spent decades trying to define and police "stock" engine components, but short of a sealed engine from a single supplier, such restrictions have always led to, ahem...creative interpretations of what is stock, if not outright cheating. OTOH, there are only a few ways to cheat an SIR, and they are all well know and easy to detect. Furthermore, select the correct SIR size and one gets full stock power from the engine, but there is no real incentive to take it apart and spend lots of money in the search for improvements. Micropolishing the crank, 7-angle valve jobs and all the other incremental improvements a good engine shop can do to net another 10-15hp don't do any good. Bolt the motor in and run it.

You also wrote "people dump tons of money building hot motors (that don't last as long) when stock they put out about 150 rear wheel hp". I got news for you. It doesn't take much to bump the output of a stock motor up considerably. The other day I was talking with a well-known engine builder who told me that that very morning he had dyno'd a customer's "stock" late-model 1000cc DSR at 180+hp and 85+lbs-ft at the rear tires. That's 200hp at shaft by merely adding a piggy-back module and opening up the intake and exhaust a little. Not even a set of cams.

My point is two-fold. First, if anyone thinks that F1000 is going to stick with 150hp, they need to stick with their pinto motor, because short of an expensive sealed spec motor is isn't going to happen. Second, to keep folks from going nuts spending money on hp, we simply cut off the air supply with an SIR. This is easy to do and to enforce, and much safer for the engine than fuel restrictors.

Why the weight penalty for FI?

I'm flexible on this, but here's my reasoning. Everybody seems to agree that we need a place for older and cheaper carb'd engines. Now, I know that to build one is more expensive than an FI engine, but let's assume that folks at the lower budget level really will bolt in an older R1 or whatever and run it bone-stock with carbs. In the spirit of fairness, let's throw them a 25 lb bone. You folks can debate this, but 25 lbs is applied for FI in almost all cases in the Club. What do others think?

I'm glad the wider wheels worked okay for you, and I agree that they look cool as she-ite!

Personally, I'd leave the rule open. Folks will figure out what the fastest combo is and will quickly settle in on it. Maybe I got it all backwards and 6 & 8's will be best. Time will tell, but in the meantime there won't be as much carping over the rules if we let folks experiement a little.

Hayausa? Sure, why not. Say 1000 lbs? I'm flexible...the idea is to get motorcycle engines out there in greater numbers.

I didn't know of the FS website. Thanks for the link!

I don't have any issue with flat bottoms, and completely concur that the xSR regs are unworkable, so clarity is the order of the day. Just please do stick to descriptive rules and avoid "intentional" statements like "the purpose of this is to...", or rules that violate basic physics or conflict with other rules.

Cheers!

[D.T. Benner]

Do inlet restrictors work? Sure-European and British F3 has been using them for years and they have had many different engine brands and you know they would not have that diversity if the restrictors didn't work.

[jerry freeman]

I just got my F1000 car homologated this week. It's an old aluminum tub SV with a carburated Honda 1000 I converted myself. So, yes people will run older carb motors because they're cheap. I feel like carbon tubs are defeating the purpose to keep this cheap so you can either do it yourself or buy a car. Outside that, The rules should be pretty open. Especially on the motors. I agree it's to difficult to try to police a bunch of different motors. Use the air restrictors. If you don't think they'll work, ask NASCAR. Just my 2 cents.

[RobLav]

Nice car Jerry. Where'd you get it? It sure looks a lot better now then I remember. Good luck with her.

[carnut169]

Ok, so its a SIR. I guess thats fine- seems a pity people have to cheat in club racing but whatever. I will say that 180 at the rear wheels is the result of an very optimistic dyno or a built motor. I've been reading GSXR bike sites for a year now (these guys are nuts) and no one is making that kind of hp. 200 at the wheels w/ a only PC, intake & exhaust- no way.

There are plenty of reasons to swap even if all you are going to see is 150...
1. New pro-built Pintos don't make 150hp and cost a ton of $$.
2. Our 150hp is 200lbs less than the Pinto's 145 (7lb= 1hp so weight gives us 28.5hp)
3. Stock bike motors can last years, pitch it when it goes bad and buy another driveline for 1/2 a Pinto rebuild.
4. 200lbs means less wear on everything, better braking, more safety
5. 6 speed sequential gearbox (lol- for free!)
6. Ever hear an FS at 12,000rpm? Mmmm.

I will agree that the bike makers are in a HP fight and we will see more and more development over the years. The 05-06 GSXR is the most powerful 1000cc to date...
Unfortunately (fortunately?) this means more acccidents (150hp & 350lbs, come on!) and a large supply of motors for us!

Love to see some pics of your conversion Jerry...

925FI, 900 carb? (with driver) that seems fair. Lets not add any more than that....

[RussMcB]

The restricted inlet makes a lot of sense, but I've always wondered: How would SCCA tech guys (or competitors) know if someone had secret air passages to allow more air into the engine? It seems that someone could be clever enough to hide it so it couldn't been seen from the outside.

I guess the only thing that would keep that in check would be the threat of a tear down and exposure that way.

[RobLav]

Jerry's car is another reason why we need to allow monocoque construction. Recommend rules allow aluminum.

[Dave Gomberg]

The restricted inlet makes a lot of sense, but I've always wondered: How would SCCA tech guys (or competitors) know if someone had secret air passages to allow more air into the engine?

You guys should look at the 2006 GCR, specifically page GTCS-40, where the SIR is discussed for the GT classes. In particular, sub-section d) says:

d. Sealing the Restrictor from its supply of air must cause
the engine to stop within 4 seconds. This check is to be
made at an engine speed of approximately 2500 rpm.
The sealed airbox must withstand this test. Pressure
sensors present inside the intake system must be
disconnected during this check.

And as Chairman of the Formula and Sports Racer advisory committee, while I've got the floor, let me add a couple of things to what Stan has said.

Getting F1000 to be a National class will not be a walk in the park. The idea of using the 2 liter Zetec in FC came to the CRB several times before it got serious consideration. The primary problem is that a letter would show up saying (in effect): "This would be a good thing. Let us use this engine." That isn't exactly a plan. There came a time when enough guys were willing to put in the work and time to create a real proposal. It took a while for them to gather information, hash out details among themselves and then to write it up. They then sent it to me on an informal basis for review before it became a formal submission. I suggested some presentation improvements and the result was what was made public in Fastrack. It was discussed at length on these forums. FC guys wrote letters to the CRB (both for and against). The advisory committee reviewed the proposal and reviewed the letters. Some detail changes were made and it went to the CRB with our recommendation for approval. The CRB was satisfied with the result and the Zetec is now legal in FC.

While discussing details of F1000 here will help get ideas on the table, a proposal won't come out of it unless a group of interested individuals agree to make the effort. I recommend that once you have a committee in place you take a close look at the Zetec proposal. It won't help you with details, but it is an excellent template for any class or engine proposal: objectives, how they are met, specific rules (GCR) language. If you can get agreement on the first part, the others will be easier. Don't feel you have to re-invent everything - steal the things that work for you from FC, FF, GT (SIR), etc. Don't include the things that all cars or all formula cars already have to do because of basic GCR requirements. If you need help along the way, write to me or call me. You can ask Rick Silver (who chaired the Zetec group) for advice on how to proceed.

And, of course, even after there are rules, what you will have is a regional-only class. At that point, you will have to populate the class and get the numbers up to where you will qualify as a National class. Very optimistically, this can't happen until at least 2009. 2006 (if you get on it) for writing class rules and getting them approved so you can start in 2007. Get sufficient numbers in 2007 and 2008 for a National class in 2009. Realistically, it might be more like 2010 or 2011. If you can't have a proposal ready to go public by May, there is no way you will get approval for 2007, so it is more likely to be 2008. Getting the numbers the first year will be tough, so add another year as regional-only. (Spec Miata, as popular as it has been, didn't get off the ground magically. It was a regional-only class in a few divisions for two or three years before a GCR regional-only class was created. Then it got its numbers for two years.)

Good luck,

Dave

[Gerry Dedonis]

The restricted inlet makes a lot of sense, but I've always wondered: How would SCCA tech guys (or competitors) know if someone had secret air passages to allow more air into the engine? It seems that someone could be clever enough to hide it so it couldn't been seen from the outside.

I guess the only thing that would keep that in check would be the threat of a tear down and exposure that way.

I have read where sanctioning bodies using a resticted inlet will tech it for air leaks by plugging the inlet then cranking the engine. If it starts, then the car is rejected.

Gerry Dedonis
Circle Track Refugee

[RussMcB]

You guys should look at the 2006 GCR, specifically page GTCS-40, where the SIR is discussed for the GT classes. In particular, sub-section d) says:

d. Sealing the Restrictor from its supply of air must cause
the engine to stop within 4 seconds

Ahh. Thanks for posting that. I'd never had thought to look there.

[Gerry Dedonis]

Ooops, I missed reading Mr. Gomberg's reply above

"...You guys should look at the 2006 GCR, specifically page GTCS-40, where the SIR is discussed for the GT classes. In particular, sub-section d) says:

d. Sealing the Restrictor from its supply of air must cause the engine to stop within 4 seconds. This check is to be made at an engine speed of approximately 2500 rpm. The sealed airbox must withstand this test. Pressure sensors present inside the intake system must be disconnected during this check..."

[Marshall Mauney]

Is anybody working on one of these in the Mid-Atlantic area? This sounds like a pretty cool concept, although I'm not sure it really reduces cost significantly vs. existing FC.....

Stan - you mentioned $18K for a new RT-41 tub as a reference point for composites. To put it in perspective, you can buy a new, complete, ready-to-run, competitive F500 for ~$20K. Composites are nice, but today they are still a significant cost adder vs. tube-frame construction. I agree that it should be forward-looking, but it also needs to not be so cost-prohibitive that guys elect to buy an FSCCA or an older FA.

Has there been any thought towards limiting suspensions costs, i.e., shocks? Triple- or quad-adjustable remote reservior units aren't cheap, and although they arguably add to the 'high-tech' appeal of the formula, I'm not sure they really add much to the competitive nature of the class. Put it this way: at $1200/corner, you've got more in shocks than in the engine/tranny/diff package - is this really desirable?

Also, I didn't see any minimum sidepod width in the dimension specs. This could be viewed as a safety issue; sidepods help prevent wheel-to-wheel contact that results in somebody going for a helmet ride. Personally, I'd suggest requiring sidepods wide enough to get at least to the middle of the tires.
Here's my take: the class you're prototyping is not too different in principle from F500; use a simple frame and inexpensive driveline to create a (relatively) low-cost formula that still leaves room for some cool design elements. Frankly, the only real differences I see are the engine spec, the wings, and the suspension freedom. I find it really, really, interesting, but it strikes me that this is still a $40-50K car as spec'd if built by a real vendor, which will happen eventually when the class becomes popular enough - just like Lee Stohr deciding to build a DSR. Heck, Lee could dust off his old FF body work, put it on his DSR, add wings, and you've got a class-killer F1000.....hmmmm. In principle though, this is a great idea. I find myself wondering if I could shoehorn an R1 mill into my Red Devil.....

[Stan Clayton]

Sage advice from Dave Gomberg, guys. There are a lot of support for this concept as well as resources available to help, lend advice and share "how they did it". The path has already been blazed - all ya gotta do is follow it.

On the subject of chassis, I don't think one needs to define how the car is built. Just verbiage that the car must meet SCCA/FIA specs. That way you don't get into fights over somebody's converted old "Formula Whatever". Plus, keep in mind the objective, which is primarily to build a motorcycle engined formula class - not simply to give a new place for old FCs to run.

Composite tubs are simply safer than either tube frames or aluminum monocoques, and that is my motivation for permitting them. At only 900 lbs and 150-180 hp, I seriously doubt that they will have any measurable performance advantage over tube frames or aluminum monocoques. Remember, it took a solid two years of development for 1260 lbs and 250 hp carbon tubbed Ralts to consistently beat the aluminum Swift DB-4's, and the carbon Reynards never did.

Furthermore, I doubt that Elan, Swift or any other big constructor can develop dominance without the advantage of demanding a "spec chassis". Heck, they can't even dominate DSR or CSR with purpose-built cars. Smaller constructors are much nimbler and quicker to innovate.

I will say that 180 at the rear wheels is the result of an very optimistic dyno or a built motor. I've been reading GSXR bike sites for a year now (these guys are nuts) and no one is making that kind of hp. 200 at the wheels w/ a only PC, intake & exhaust- no way.

Okay, I double-checked and you are correct, Sean. The motor is fully built with an aftermarket long rod & piston package - sorry I got it wrong the first time. But remember that I said 180 at the wheels - not 200. The 200 is my guess at what a 180 whp motor would make at the output shaft. In any case, a properly chosen SIR will take away the incentive to spend that kind of money, because a stock engine will make as much power as a built one if we choose the right SIR.

Personally, I think people will be attracted to the idea, and that with recognition of a Regional F1000 class that the class will grow. Where it ends up will be a matter of how much support for it there is.

Stan Clayton

[Stan Clayton]

Is anybody working on one of these in the Mid-Atlantic area? This sounds like a pretty cool concept, although I'm not sure it really reduces cost significantly vs. existing FC.....

Stan - you mentioned $18K for a new RT-41 tub as a reference point for composites. To put it in perspective, you can buy a new, complete, ready-to-run, competitive F500 for ~$20K. Composites are nice, but today they are still a significant cost adder vs. tube-frame construction. I agree that it should be forward-looking, but it also needs to not be so cost-prohibitive that guys elect to buy an FSCCA or an older FA.

Has there been any thought towards limiting suspensions costs, i.e., shocks? Triple- or quad-adjustable remote reservior units aren't cheap, and although they arguably add to the 'high-tech' appeal of the formula, I'm not sure they really add much to the competitive nature of the class. Put it this way: at $1200/corner, you've got more in shocks than in the engine/tranny/diff package - is this really desirable?

Also, I didn't see any minimum sidepod width in the dimension specs. This could be viewed as a safety issue; sidepods help prevent wheel-to-wheel contact that results in somebody going for a helmet ride. Personally, I'd suggest requiring sidepods wide enough to get at least to the middle of the tires.
Here's my take: the class you're prototyping is not too different in principle from F500; use a simple frame and inexpensive driveline to create a (relatively) low-cost formula that still leaves room for some cool design elements. Frankly, the only real differences I see are the engine spec, the wings, and the suspension freedom. I find it really, really, interesting, but it strikes me that this is still a $40-50K car as spec'd if built by a real vendor, which will happen eventually when the class becomes popular enough - just like Lee Stohr deciding to build a DSR. Heck, Lee could dust off his old FF body work, put it on his DSR, add wings, and you've got a class-killer F1000.....hmmmm. In principle though, this is a great idea. I find myself wondering if I could shoehorn an R1 mill into my Red Devil.....

Very good points, Marshall...sorry I missed it in my post above, but I drafted that post while watching "Return of the Jedi" with my 5-year old grandson.

Please read my comments above about composite tubs. If you want to convert an older FC you can have a very competitive car for well under $15,000. But if you have the resources and want the safety of a carbon tub, and it confers no competitive advantage, then why not? I will have to hear a very convincing argument based on facts, not emotion, for me to change my mind on this. Besides, maybe all it would take to entice a constructor to build a cheaper tub would be the prospect of multiple sales in a growing class, and in fact, I happen to know that a European tub builder is looking for such opportunities at this very moment (they had reps at PRI - and NO, I am NOT the importer!). Prices could easily tumble down close to the range of a new VD tube frame chassis if this happens. FWIW, VD says it takes 160 man-hours to build a new FC chassis. At $50/hour that's $8-grand (their cost) for just a bare tube frame chassis.

I understand your comments about limiting shocks, but all that does is play into the hands of folks who can pay to do comprehensive testing to get the valving just right. Besides, we won the Runoffs in FA two years ago with a cheap 10-year old set of Penskes. Driver talent and chassis tuning is far more important than what shock you can afford to buy.

The F1000 website already uses the FC spec for body width. I think that would work well, rather than forcing them to all add body width. We want to keep any cost raising measures to a minimum.

Marshall, if you want to turn your Red Devil into a shifter, rally support in the F500 class for a 600cc motorcycle option with an SIR set at 100hp...

Stan

[Marshall Mauney]

But if you have the resources and want the safety of a carbon tub, and it confers no competitive advantage, then why not?

I'm not sure I agree that there's no competitive advantage. The lighter weight allows you to get your CG lower, or at least have more control over it. When was the last time a tube-frame car won in FA?

Prices could easily tumble down close to the range of a new VD tube frame chassis if this happens.

This would be great, but it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg issue. Until a cheaper alternative actually exists, it would be a cost issue, IMO.

I understand your comments about limiting shocks, but all that does is play into the hands of folks who can pay to do comprehensive testing to get the valving just right. [...] Driver talent and chassis tuning is far more important than what shock you can afford to buy.

Agreed, but only to a point. I've seen (and raced against) Club Fords with $1K Penskes, and that's not a trend I like to see.

Marshall, if you want to turn your Red Devil into a shifter, rally support in the F500 class fo a 600cc motorcycle option with an SIR set at 100hp...

F600? Been there, done that, got cussed out. The F500 crowd really doesn't want to go there - they like the spec engine system and 'tranny' they have now, and are really worried about the 'engine of they year' potential. Also, every time it comes up, the proposer tries to 'upgrade' the suspension, which really makes the natives restless. There's already some concern, though, about where to go when the 2-strokes are (almost inevitably) outlawed. I wonder if the SIR would make a difference....

Seriously, though, could a F600/F1000 pairing be the replacement path for FF/FC?

[Mike B]

Geez, I go out of town for a couple days and return to a full-blown F1000 discussion!

Stan,
Thanks for the kind words in the other thread and thanks for taking an active interest in F1000. When I drafted the first set of rules, it was with the intention that it was only a first draft, and it only had limited input from some of the interested members here on Apexspeed. Lots has happened since then and I now have a different perspective on a few things.
Since the rules were drafted, Sean has finished his car and done some testing on different size wheels. My group has made some progress on our conversion kit design. There has been several heated discussion on the DSR forum regarding underbody rules. Finally, some new people have contacted me with additional feedback on the rules and the class in general.
I agree that it's a bit misguided to rule out or shun modern technology.

• I would be okay with changing the brake rule to allow alloys.
• I can see your reasoning for a carbon tub. I'm not sure that it would play out like you envision, but I'll keep an open mind. In the meantime, the fact is that most of the cars in F1000 will be converted FC or FF cars. Tube frame construction also permits more small-volume manufacturers (Citation, Piper, Stohr) to build a purpose-built F1000 car. Safety hasn't been a big problem in DSR.
• When drafting the rules, I struggled with how to keep a cap on escalating engine costs. I'm not in favor of specifying specific component weight, configuration, material, etc. Partially because I don't know enough about the various bike engines, and partially because the policing of it would be cumbersome. The SIR would be a simple solution and I'm in favor of that.
• Sean has shown that there may be a need to go with bigger wheels. I don't think leaving it unlimited is the right thing to do, but possibly capping it at 8" and 10".
• The underbody rules are a whole 'nother can of worms. I had been thinking that they should mirror the DSR rules to enable easier crossover from Sportsracer to Formula car. A group of us did some brief brainstorming on easily converted bodywork, but it fizzled out. I'm not sure if there would be much interest in that anyway. I'm not against tunnels and I really don't think it would add much cost to a car. I think I could build a set for my RF93 for a few hundred bucks. Maybe underbody should remain completely open. That sure would be easy to enforce. I hope this thread doesn't devolve into an aero discussion so please start another thread if anyone wants to get into a DSR-like discussion of tunnels.
• As far as weight penalties for FI vs. carbed, let's keep in mind that the rules are a work in progress (just like FC!) and not everything needs to be set in stone up front. Those types of adjustments may need to be made on the fly. Could FI just be adjusted with an SIR?
• If we outlaw all-wheel steering, I'll have to start over on my design.

Thanks again to Stan and everyone else that has contributed to F1000 so far either here, on www.formula1000.com , or via private e-mail.

Let's get some cars on the track in '06!

[RobLav]

Welcome back Mike.

Can we ask the Apexspeed guys to create a separate another (F1000) main topic on this site? So we can continue hashing out the rules? Or do you want to move it to Bill Maisey's site? Or keep it here? In any case, there seems to be lot of new interest, and we need to move along the rules so people will know what to build to.

The following is my proposal - just a start - let's focus on the next three years:

Frame: Tube frame in steel or aluminum monocoque (or a combination of both)

Suspension: Per current FC rules

Brakes: non carbon, but otherwise free

Engine: 1000cc max swept volume - with restrictor plate of XXX size. Allow grandfathering, up to a specific date, of select currently homologated motorcycle powered cars up to 1300cc with a weight penalty. (Yes I have a 1300cc Hayabusa car, but it is not homologated, and if we agree to a set of rules, I will put a 1000cc engine in it.)

Transmission: maximum of 6 speeds. Reverse not required.

Rear diff: Free (open, locked, or limited slip)

Wheels: max diameter is 13"; max width is 8" front, 10" rear; made of metal

Tires: current CSR, DSR, FC, or FF tires

Wings: max wing size per current FC rules

Body: max sizes per current FC rules

Underbody: Current FC rules

Safety: Per current FC rules


This is only a start, to continue the ball rolling. If we can agree to the primary elements of the basic categories, then we can move ahead. Perhaps in three-four years, we can alter it to allow tubs or change the wheel sizes, etc.

Rob

[Marshall Mauney]

Wheels: max diameter is 13"; max width is 8" front, 10" rear; made of metal

Tires: current CSR, DSR, FC, or FF tires

Wings: max wing size per current FC rules

Body: max sizes per current FC rules

Interesting; if you went with just maxima (as opposed to max/minimums) you would open the door to converted F500s and maybe a few other oddball chassis'. It might open the door for a few additional cars.....just a thought.

BTW, why not just leave tires open and let the wheel size and track width take care of the rest?

MM

[RobLav]

Marshall,
All I was trying to do was say "no spec tire". That's all. Maybe that is what it should say.

[Stan Clayton]

Hi Mike...and thanks for the warm welcome!

I think that an open mind WRT composite tubs is the right tack. On basic questions of safety I think the Club has an obligation to take a leadership role, and I don't see the Club backing down on this issue. Besides, it's not like we are going to require them. Carbon tubs have been legal for years in DSR, although no one has yet chosen to exercise the option, and the question is a non-issue in that class.

Yeah, like open bottom aero rules, the SIR is the way to go to avoid all that discord.

Wheels are a funny thing. I think most people automatically think wider is faster, but it's not that simple. In Atlantics we run the skinniest tires we can fit on those 14" rear wheels because aero- and rolling drag conspire to slow us down if we run bigger tires. But, if you guys just gotta have a max size, 8" & 10" sounds fine to me. Lots of good tires in that range.

I'm flexible on the FI weight penalty issue. In fact, I can buy the argument that EFI and 93 octane pump fuel should be the presumed combination for this class.

Regards, Stan

[preform resources]

Bill Maisey's site, an adjunct to the XSR site is exploring the interest level in F-1000 and the possibility of adding a simple body to allow the cars to run as a DSR ,one of the topics that will relly help out the proliferation of this is that of coming up with some conversion kits/ideas to actually make it easier todo and won't cost a small fortune,right now most of the conversions are based on the 90's van dieman chassis as they are plentiful,reasonable and parts abound for them,but I suspect that the conversion no matter what chassis you use would have certain similarities.
Dave Craddock




http://p104.ezboard.com/bformulas

[RobLav]

Here is a link to a proposed set of rules on Mike's formula1000 site:

http://www.mike-beauchamp.com/f1000/...ion%20Rule.pdf

[formulasuper]

Hi Mike...and thanks for the warm welcome!

Wheels are a funny thing. I think most people automatically think wider is faster, but it's not that simple. In Atlantics we run the skinniest tires we can fit on those 14" rear wheels because aero- and rolling drag conspire to slow us down if we run bigger tires. But, if you guys just gotta have a max size, 8" & 10" sounds fine to me. Lots of good tires in that range.

Regards, Stan

IMHO if wider tires are slower why limit them? Why not let physics determine what is used?

[Stan Clayton]

Mike a great start, but IMO they are too "CFC-centric" to attrack the kind of passion we all hope for with this concept. With that in mind I have taken a stab at a set of rules that I think is more balanced between DSR and CFC. It is still a draft, though, and no doubt in need of work.

FORMULA 1000 PREPARATION RULE
Formula 1000 is a restricted class for single seat, open wheel racing cars as defined by these regulations.

A. Chassis: Monocoque or tubular steel chassis construction.
1. Engine oil or water tubes are not permitted within the cockpit.
2. Chassis of non-metallic composite construction shall be proven to meet FIA specifications for non-metallic composite chassis prior to being submitted to the SCCA for homologation. Contact the SCCA national office for a list of the relevant FIA specifications/SCCA requirements.

B. Bodywork and Airfoils: See table of dimensions.
1. Airfoils are a requirement for this class. See table for dimensions.
2. No part of the suspended part of the car shall extend more than 1 cm (0.394 inches) below the horizontal plane forming the bottom of the tub or chassis.
3. Cockpit: Forward-facing roll bar/roll cage bracing and required padding will not be considered in the dimensions shown in the table.
4. Flexible or moveable aerodynamic skirts are prohibited.

C. Engines: Production 4-stroke motorcycle engines are the only permitted engines. Maximum total swept volume is 1005cc.
1. Carburetion and fuel injection are unrestricted.
2. A single XX.x mm SIR is required.
3. Lubrication system is unrestricted; dry sump is permitted.
4. Cooling system is unrestricted. The radiator, if housed in or incorporating a cowl air-scoop deflector, shall comply with body regulations.
5. Turbocharging and supercharging are permitted, restricted to engines less than 670cc with four valves or fewer per cylinder.

D. Suspension: All suspension parts shall be of ferrous material, with the exception of hubs, hub adapters, hub carriers, bell cranks, pivot blocks, bearings and bushes, spring caps, abutment nuts, anti-roll bar links, shock absorber caps, and nuts.
1. Titanium suspension components are prohibited.
2. Springs: Steel only.
3. Shock Absorbers: Steel or aluminum alloy body.
4. It is not permitted to construct any suspension member in the form of an airfoil or to incorporate a spoiler in the construction of any suspension member.

E. Brakes: Unrestricted, except that carbon fiber brake rotors are prohibited.

F. Wheels and Tires: Unrestricted providing wheels are metal.

G. Transmission: The gearbox shall contain not more than six (6) forward gears.
1. The use of an automatically shifted gearbox is prohibited.
2. Electric and/or pneumatic assisted gear change mechanisms are permitted.
3. Rear wheel drive only is permitted.
4. Final drive ratio and gear ratios are unrestricted.
5. Electronically controlled differentials are prohibited. Torque biasing, limited slip, and locked differentials are permitted.
6. A reverse gear is not required.

H. Weight: 900 lbs minimum as raced with driver.
1. FI carries a 25 lbs weight penalty.
2. Pre-1993 FC cars with motorcycle engines may compete at their 2005 GCR specification and weight.

[RobLav]

I can live with everything Stan wrote. My only recommendation is: But why even make airfoils a requirement for the class? Why not keep it free? Look at what the FC guys do at Pocono to get around the airfoil requirement rule. I'd love to keep this class as far as possible from a spec class. Let's see what ingenuity brings.

[Stan Clayton]

Hey Rob,

Yeah, I snagged the airfoil verbiage off the FC page in the GCR, and I agree that we don't need to specify them. Heck, if you read the Atlantic section of the GCR carefully you will not see any requirement to have wings...though you'd be foolish not to run them. I agree - let ingenuity have a role here!

I also see a couple of areas that can be cleaned up...

C.3. Lubrication system is unrestricted; dry sump is permitted.

If the lubrication system is unrestricted then by definition dry sumping is permitted. Let's change the wording to read:

C.3. Lubrication system is unrestricted.

A second item that caught my eye is...

G.5. Electronically controlled differentials are prohibited. Torque biasing, limited slip, and locked differentials are permitted.

This can be more clearly written...

5. Differentials are unrestricted, except that electronically controlled differentials are prohibited.

Stan

[Bill Maisey]

Great start Stan. Might also include the requirement that brake rotors be ferrous. (google Red Devil Brakes.... and be entertained/shocked by what ceramic coat Ti rotors could cost... )

[Stan Clayton]

Already there, Bill...

E. Brakes: Unrestricted, except that carbon fiber brake rotors are prohibited.

And to tell the truth I wouldn't even outlaw CF rotors if it was up to me. After all, they are legal in DSR, CSR and FA...yet no one has been foolish enough to waste money on them.

Stan

[Mike B]

Stan, Your proposed set of rules is elegantly simple and I suggest you rewrite the whole GCR. You could cut it in half!
I can also live with almost everything Stan proposed. My first hesistation comes with the allowance of turbocharged, smaller displacement engines. I'm not completely against it and have considered it myself, given the HP available in the current R6. However, it seems to dilute the "F1000" moniker. Maybe it's just a philosophical thing and isn't that big of a deal, but I would caution against F1000 becoming the open wheel DSR. That's why we have FS.

I would also stick with maximum wing sizes, as opposed to an open wing rule. This would permit Pocono-like winglets but prevent Sprint Car billboard-size wings.

Stan, is your clarification of subject "E" to say that you would permit Ti rotors?

What is the science behind selecting the right SIR size?

Is there any significant dissent with any of these proposed rules? Are the interested parties okay with moving forward with these guidelines? If so, we can start the process of getting recognized by the Club per Dave Gomberg's suggestion.

[Dave Gomberg]

What is the science behind selecting the right SIR size?

There really is science at work here and it has been pretty comprehensively worked out by Dave Finch at Raetech. He did the work (and a lot of it) to assist the merger of GT4 and GT5 into GTLite. When the time comes (that is, when most of the rest of the F1000 proposal is worked out), I'll talk to Dave and get a recommendation.

In the case of F1000, choosing an SIR size is straightforward and actually, not terribly critical. Let me explain that. In the case of GTLite, and also GT2 and GT3, there are a variety of engine sizes that have to be balanced. In addition, there is an even wider variation in chassis types/layouts. Getting near-equality in these cases is really nasty - not so much in the engine area as in overall performance, which is why weights are also adjusted. For F1000, the chassis will be quite similar, even though not identical. The engines will all be the same size (ignoring for the moment the issue of super/turbo-charged small engines). So, as long as an SIR size is chosen that limits these engines to something in the range of 165-185 bhp (at the crank), everything will be fine because every engine will be limited to the same power. Another way of looking at this is that if a target of 175 bhp is chosen and a particular SIR size limits things to 172 bhp, who cares? Likewise, if it turns out to be 178. (Actually, I expect that whatever target is chosen, Dave will be able to come very, very close.)

By the way, in addition to a specific SIR size, a compression ratio limit will also have to be specified. Without it, it is possible to kick compression up (until there is interference between valves and pistons). Of course, this will reduce engine life, which is expressly what F1000 doesn't want to allow. And, if you are wondering, there is no need to worry about wild and crazy cams. With an appropriate SIR size and a limited compression ratio, there won't be enough air available for those cams to do their job effectively.

Having said all that, let me note that if super/turbo-charged small engines are allowed, balancing them with the 1000cc bike engines would be another problem entirely.

Dave

[Stan Clayton]

Thanks Mike, but I'm not sure I'm up to taking on all 628 pages of the GCR. Still, there is a great deal of redundancy in the book, and the Advisory Committees have been encouraged to look at their sections with an eye towards cutting out some of the detritus.

I understand what you are saying about the turbo motors and the creep away from 1 liter engines. However, I try to keep in mind what we're trying to accomplish with the class. If it is indeed to promote liter engines, then so be it. If, OTOH, we are trying to create a "motorcycle powered" class, then I think we should take a more inclusive approach to appeal to as many young karters and FSAE grads as possible - while still keeping the 1000cc converted FC as the center anchor.

Maybe we should drop the Formula 1000 moniker in favor of something more inclusive, like Formula Moto...that way we could have a place for everyting from turbo'd 600's to Hayabusas.

And BTW, I think we can drop down from the 670cc for turbos, too. That size was to accommodate a turbo'd microcar JDM engine in DSR, which wouldn't fit in a motorcycle engined class anyway. A simple 600cc turbo limit should work fine.

I'm cool on the wings, pick a size...

The science behind SIRs is based on the fact that only a certain amount of air can flow through an opening at atmospheric pressure. That air can support only a certain amount of horsepower. Pick the right size SIR for a certain displacement range and almost no matter what one does to the engine it isn't going to make much difference to the performance. Notice that I didn't say it wouldn't make "any" difference, just not much. The FIA sets SIR limits every 500cc on NA engines, so the same SIR would cover engines from 800cc to 1300cc. Engines near the smaller end of that range would rev higher and produce more top end power, while engines at the top end would have more grunt coming off the corners, but would then 'fall over' at the top end. All in all, the engines have very similar overall performances. It may sound counterintuitive, but FIA have worked it out very well and it has been well proven. An engineering firm here in the US advises SCCA on specific SIR sizes.

I am open on the brake rotor question - just not the calipers...

Let's hear some input...

Stan

[RobLav]

I'm OK with everything, except I also question the turbocharged or supercharged engines. Prefer MAX wing size, but do not require wings.

This is great. I'll start looking for a new engine for the RF96. The thought of converting my new RF99 even crossed my mind, but that car is too valuable in its present state. And it is a prime candidate for a Zetec anyway.

Thanks Stan, Dave, and Mike

[Stan Clayton]

Dave, here are some CRs for 2004 liter bike engines.

Honda CRB1000RR 11.9:1
Kawasaki ZX10R 12.7:1 (2005)
Suzuki GSXR1000 12.0:1
Yamaha R1 12.3:1

(source: www.bikez.com/brands/index.php)

Based on that I suggest using Dave's race motor default CR of 12.5:1 - close enough!

Also, looking at the SportRider website, one can see that these bikes put down up to 164 wheel hp bone stock. At the output shaft, that's going to be ~185hp, so I think we should use that as an initial target for SIR sizing. That way everybody can come up Kawi's stock power.

(source: http://www.sportrider.com/features/146_0406_comp_dyno/)

Stan

[carnut169]

I agree w/ Mike on the turbo... keep it F1000.


Wonder if you could use two smaller IR instead of the one...

[Peter Olivola]

What problem would this solve? Is it worth the added complexity?

Wonder if you could use two smaller IR instead of the one...

[Marshall Mauney]

Dave, here are some CRs for 2004 liter bike engines.

Honda CRB1000RR 11.9:1
Kawasaki ZX10R 12.7:1 (2005)
Suzuki GSXR1000 12.0:1
Yamaha R1 12.3:1

(source: www.bikez.com/brands/index.php)

Based on that I suggest using Dave's race motor default CR of 12.5:1 - close enough!

Why choose 12.5 if a stock ZX10 mill is at 12.7? I'd suggest finding the shop CR tolerance for the ZX10 engine, add enough to cover a minor head mill job, and go with it. I'd bet the number would be 12.8 or so.....

I also wonder if anyone's thought about the Triumph Daytona 3-cylinder (955 cc). I have one in my garage already.....hmmmm....... Lots of low-end torque and enough power to compete. Somehow, I think my wife wouldn't understand me disassembling the bike, though.

[John LaRue]

Just something to think about.

The brakes are actually referred to as carbon-carbon, not carbon fibre. Very simply, a pre-preg carbon fibre material is molded into a disc under pressure and at low temperature. Then, through controlled means, this disc is processed at very high temperatures to "burn off" the resins. Thereafter a gas is infused into the oven and as the gas burns the carbon molecules from the gas attach to the carbon structure to form a carbon-carbon structure. The longer the part is processed the denser it becomes.

There are a number of misconceptions about carbon-carbon:

1) Cost. While initial cost is higher, the cost per mile is much lower. As it was long ago pointed out to me, those big jets don't use carbon to save weight. It is simply cost effective and a better material. Carbon wears more when it is cool than hot. Hence more wear in aircraft occurs when taxying vs landing. Recall that horrible grinding during taxying? That is because of a lack of heat.

(FYI the IROC cars were outfitted with carbon years ago in the days when Ray Evernham was with IROC. Many of those cars if not most still have the original carbon brakes. Given, they don't do alot of miles in racing and many of the tracks don't require braking, however there is quite a bit of testing and I am wagering a guess that those have been on in excess of ten years!)

2) Wear rates. Traditional materials cannot hold a candle to carbon for wear rates. i.e. most cars at LeMans will complete the entire race without a rotor or pad change.

3) Performance. Unless you are at the high end (F1), carbon has performance similar to the top end traditional materials so it does not "ruin the show" like some would argue.
It is less vulnerable to fade because it loves heat and will not warp or suffer stress cracking from heat or rapid cooling. (In fact, you can take a glowing red carbon disc and quench it without harm.)

4) Carbon does not require bedding. It is ready to run when bolted on. Add bedding costs to your calculation for traditional material. ($50 per corner for dyno time or the cost of several laps.)

5) Weight. The big advantage of carbon is in its weight.(Usually less than half) One of the primary reasons it is utilized in IRL is due to the safety aspect. It is much easier to control and retain in a crash. Which type of rotor do you want trying to penetrate your cockpit or trying to go into the stands?

6) Heat. As noted above, carbon loves heat and therefore many cars can run without the necessity of ducts.

All in all, it is a better game simply based on economics not to mention safety, however most will look at the initial cost in evaluation rather than the per lap/mile cost.

John

[Stan Clayton]

Marshall, I recommended Dave Finch's default 12.5:1 value for two reasons. First, it is already worked out and all we have to do is pull a number off the chart. Second, there is very little difference between the thermaldynamic efficiency of 12.5 vs 12.7 compression ratio, so as I noted above, "close enough!"

Thermaldynamic efficiency is usually given as 1-(1/(CR^0.4)). For 12.5 and 12.7 that works out to:

1-(1/(12.5^0.4)) = 63.588 %, and 1-(1/(12.7^0.4)) = 63.819 %.

(.63819/.63588) = 1.0036, or about a third of a percent. A 1% difference in output for a 180hp engine would be 1.8hp, so 0.36 of that would be ~0.65 hp. And because the compression is non-adiabatic, the real gain would be only about 2/3rds of the theoretical, or about one-half a horsepower. That's not enough to quibble over IMO.

There are considerations of the ability to make an SIR in fine enough gradations to split hairs that finely, as well, but that's another issue.

Stan