F1000 Rules Discussion

[sidney]

I'm a little new to the whole F1k game, and come from an FV background. I'll ask a stupid question -- Why do you need to allow the additional expense and complexity of tunnels? I beleive that these are illegal in FC? I see no real advantage to allowing them in F1k. As far as weight goes, 900-950 with the driver should be no problem, even for those wanting to use an older SV (Lola type) chassis.

[Stan Clayton]

I'm with you 100% on the question of ballast, Mike. With a set of aluminum calipers and a 180 lbs driver, a converted FC should weigh right at 925-930 lbs with minimal fuel. I know that bigger guys feel slighted, but counter balancing that is the fact that lighter guys have to add ballast. We have to set the standard somewhere, and 180 is it.

Sidney, we ultimately are trying to create a class that appeals to up and coming karters and FSAEers, not just a home for converted FCs. Therefore we are building in some areas for them to play with without going nuts with the cost (carbon brakes, for instance). What is legal in FC is ultimately of no consequence to F1000 - or we wouldn't be talking about m/c engines...

[Jtovo]

Okay, here is my ignorant opinion....

I went to Phoenix this past weekend and walked around the SCCA National with a very good friend of mine. My friend is 58 and used to crew for the elder Rahals in SCCA.

As we walked around the pits, he loved the CSR and DSR. We saw, Stohrs and other cars. We then saw a couple Swift 008/0014 or something converrted. And they kicked the crap out of the other cars.

He is a fan of the old SCCA and felt that this was a gross violation of the intent of the rules. Why are those cars allowed to run with the real CSR cars? Why are they not BSR (i had to ask him what the hell BSR was).

My point....

F1000 is F1000, that is it. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game. Keep it simple.

Mike, you have a great idea and people are keeping an eye on you and this idea. I was at a another prominent chassis builder a couple weeks ago...they are planning on making a car for this class!

Stan,
You have some great ideas and really are putting some thought into this class, but Mike is correct. This should be simple and by getting all of these other engines, the rules become convoluted.[font=&quot][/font]

[carnut169]

1st- the whole tunnel idea came before this discussion- I would only add the weight and size of the Reynard tunnels with a turbo for my 1000- in other words it would stay FS.

IF the F1000 deal really progresses like it looks like it will I doubt I'd ever mount those sidepods and just leave the FC pods.

I tried a single VD radiator first and it did not work- the car ran hot. I added the second VD radiator and it helped a bit, but that was the ARRC in November- what happens at Road Atlanta in July is another story. I believe the problem is running the coolant around too quickly... yes, I also have an oil cooler.

My 765 was with 8 & 10" Jongbloeds which are heavier than the 6 & 8" OZs. It also had the Pingle system and a decent size battery.

I could loose some weight running OZs, a smaller battery, better calipers (I have LD20s in front) and a spool instead of the diff (Taylor/ TRE diff is a bit heavy). How much? 20lbs? 30lbs? With driver and fuel load 950lbs is about right where my car is going to be. I also only had one radiator when it was 1st put on the scale.
Let me weigh the car again w/ the changes and see what that does. I've added a radiator and two push-pull cables, changed to an updated nose, etc. Bet its about the same.

I don't have a problem being a bit overweight- but will run FS if my only other option is adding 50lbs... I just won't do it unless it becomes required to get the car on the track.

If we are writting the weight rules based on my car and weight (I am 175) then make it 925lbs... still leaves room for improvement but is a realistic number for any basic conversion w/ an average size driver.

[carnut169]

To be completely honest the only reason I am leaning to the 8 & 10s is how good they look...
you can save $$ and weight by keeping your FC wheels. But...

[RobLav]

Agree - the rules are getting convoluted. 900-950 lbs is my vote for min weight.

The Pinto engine I removed from my RF96 weighed about 285 lbs. The LD200 weighed 75 lbs, and the aluminum bell was about 25lbs. So I removed about 385 lbs. The Hayabusa weighs about 185lbs with the 6 speed sequential box. Add about 50 lbs for the Quaife and aluminum plate box I made... The delta is about 150 lbs. Of course, I can design a better aluminum box... So I expect to be around 1000 lbs with me in it.

I widened my sidepods about 2" each side, and changed the angle of the original VD radiators. We'll see how it goes. I also bought 8" and 10" rims...

I was also thinking, while on the long drive home, about leaving the aero pretty much free - to allow underbody tunnels in the sidepods without any required specs. "Let innovation fly with this class" is my philosophy.

[carnut169]

Agree - the rules are getting convoluted. 900-950 lbs is my vote for min weight.

I was also thinking, while on the long drive home, about leaving the aero pretty much free - to allow underbody tunnels in the sidepods without any required specs. "Let innovation fly with this class" is my philosophy.

I would agree w/ all of the above!

[jonbaytos]

We have just finshed a couple days of testing with the new Van Diemen Formula 1000.
I will post some photos when I find someone that knows how to work this thing.
Weight w-o driver 850 ,lap times up with an 06'Formula Ford 2000 Zetec

[carnut169]

Email the photos to seanoconnellmail@yahoo.com & I will post them here and on the FS site! Can't wait to see it!

[jonbaytos]

coming to you sean

[sidney]

Maybe things are different out on the west coast, but around here, up and coming karters are writing checks from daddy's account and racing Star Mazda and other "spec" classes that are geared for arrive and drive. If you have that kind of cash, great. I got out of FV because I was tired of paying too much for motor rebuilds, driving '40s technology, and having folks manipulate the rules when it suited them.

If you want to avoid the scope creep you now find in xSR, then you need to keep the rules clean and simple. xSR used to be one of the last of the tinker's class in SCCA. Now if you want to run up front, you get to spend $60k on a roller and make sure you get the latest updates every year or all you see are other cars' rain lights.

Leave the tunnels in the rules. Dragging tunnels in a 180 hp car may or may not be an advantage. Time will tell.

I love the SIR. If you can make the maximum power, you're playing on a level field. I have 2 VFR motors from the 80s that I may dust off and use if I can make enough power with them to keep pace with the Kawi.

The carbon fiber chassis is coming, but will be off in the future for most folks trying to enjoy some competitive racing and update an older car. Jumps in technology very seldom lead to reductions in cost to the end consumer. Carbon brakes? Where is the ingenuity in swapping ferrous discs for carbon? Sounds like costs that aren't necessary to get what's at the spirit of the idea. Updated calipers I can understand, exotic materials for rotors -- I just don't see the merit. And yes, I have read the earlier posts.

[Stan Clayton]

I've come full circle on the weight issue. With what folks are relating about how much weight is being traded between the Pinto lump/Mk9 on one side and a m/c engine on the other (a 2004 Yamaha R1 weighs 140lbs complete with airbox, FI, etc) I am once again comfortable a "nominal" driver can get a converted FC down to about 900 lbs without going nuts with the cost, and I am comfortable with that as the minimum weight. If folks want to add weight in the form of fatter tires and wheels, quaifes, bigger motors, pingles, radios, data acquisition systems, etc., that's fine with me, but I don't think it should be the "standard" for setting the minimum weight.

Jtovo, with all due respect to your friend, CSR's class philosophy changed abruptly on January 1st, 1983 with the classification of converted single seat Formula Atlantics, who have dominated the class ever since. Moreover, the bottom aero rule in force today was set that very day, as well, and has served the class well over the years. FWIW, the red car which won both CSR races at Phoenix was the same car Arne Loyning won with at last September's Runoffs. In the race, Arne trailed an expertly driven Maloy tube frame CSR with a 1300cc Hayabusa until that car had an electrical failure and DNF'd. It is clear that Arne's Swift 008 had nothing on the Malloy on the long back straight, though it was somewhat quicker in the twisty bits. In any case, we aren't going to return to the two seat rule. Nor are we going to a flat bottom.

Stan

[jonbaytos]

As for the proposed rules I would only caution that a page from what happened to Formula Ford 2000 should at least be looked at.
When this class started to be important to win a rolling chassis complete in the early 90's could be had for 25,000.00.As history will show that doubled over less than 5 years! The engine was very much the same,readily available for 5,500.00 and the same rate the last time I saw in 99' certain engines with the "right stuff" went for over 14,000.00.
The chassis suppliers had designs that were good for only 6 months so to some degree there escalation was justified.But what did the engine builders do!As far as I'm aware they make the same H.P. now as they did then.
The point is although Formula 1000 is not important to win now, but if ever becomes so, the rules will need to be a bit tighter or these things will be very exspensive and very gone.Your chance is now or you are in danger of repeating very recent history.To think that conversions is the only thing that you will see would not be correct.Van Diemen has already proven that.

[Stan Clayton]

Okay, I think I've wrapped everything we've talked about into the proposed rules package on the previous page. To preclude compromising tube frame chassis' lower frame rails in the search for downforce, I added a line from the FF rules (2006 GCR, D.6.a) as "1" under Chassis. That leaves plenty of room for experimentation without compromising safety.

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 chassis construction.
1. Tube frame chassis lower frame rails shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) centimeters (9.84”) apart (inside dimension) from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop.
2. Engine oil or water tubes are not permitted within the cockpit.
3. 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: Maximum dimensions per Formula Continental rules.
1. No part of the suspended part of the car shall extend more than 1 cm (0.394 inches) below the plane forming the bottom of the tub or chassis.

C. Engines: Production 4-stroke motorcycle engines up to 4 cylinders are the only permitted engines.
1. Carburetion and fuel injection are unrestricted.
2. An SIR is required, based on engine displacement. See 2006 GCR page GTCS-40 for SIR rules.
a. Over 900cc and up to 1100cc – 25.0mm
b. Over 1100cc and up to 1300cc – 24.75mm
3. Lubrication system is unrestricted.
4. Cooling system is unrestricted.

D. Suspension: Carbon fiber and titanium suspension components are prohibited.
1. Springs: Steel only.
2. Shock Absorbers: Steel or aluminum alloy body only.

E. Brakes: Unrestricted, except that carbon 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. Differentials are unrestricted, except that electronically controlled differentials are prohibited.
6. A reverse gear is not required.

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

Edit: Deleted the word 'horizontal' from B.1.

[Mike B]

Just a point of clarification from my standpoint: I didn't view this class as a draw for former karters or FSAE alumni, and I DID view it as a place primarily for converted FCs. The concept has since evolved, both here and in my mind. With Joe Tovo's and Jon Baytos' revelation (not really a revelation) that manufacturer's are interested, converted FCs will just be a part of the class, not THE class. This is great news and will help the #s grow faster than I had hoped.

I still don't feel any responsibility to provide a place for karters (or anybody else for that matter.) That was one of the great promises of FSCCA. It's a great car but who's to say what a karter wants? Some may want to stay in karts, some want to go Star Mazda, some want to to FV. I just want to provide a (relatively) inexpensive, but high-performance open-wheel class that might be attractive to any driver, young or old. Hey, that sounds like the start of a mission statement!

Having said all that, I still could go either way on the tunnels. As I said, my concept was for converted FCs and keeping the aero rules from that class. On the other hand, I like to tinker and develop and think I can build tunnels cheaply. I also like simple rules to eliminate any misinterpretation.

My own selfish opinion also wants to keep F1000 at 1000cc, even though it might alienate some with 'Busas. The more pure, the better (IMO.)

[Mike B]

Darn you guys, I can't keep up with this thread!

Stan, Is the frame rail thing to put converted FC cars on an equal footing with bespoke F1000 cars with respect to tunnels?

I agree with Jon Baytos. If F1000 becomes a national class with big numbers and people (rich people) want to win, carbon chassis will become common and F1000 will be like DSR (expensive). Is that bad? Maybe not, but it would preclude me from competing. Maybe that's good...

[Stan Clayton]

Mike, I was reminded in a private email why that rule is in FF, which was to preclude placing the lower frame rails so close together as to compromise structural integrity and side impact protection. That hasn't been a noticable problem in FC, but I wouldn't want to see it showing up in F1000 as folks experiment to find the best configuration. If existing FCs are under that number, we can adjust as required if it appears warranted.

Thank you for reminding me that the class is not for karters or FSAEers. I started using those examples as a counter balance to those who saw this as purely an evolution of FC. That is clearly no longer the case, so we now find ourselves where Richard James envisioned us in his editorial...once again excited about formula cars!

And I am not in the least surprised that constructors are interested. Where there is excitement there will be sales, since not everyone has the time, energy, inclination or ability to convert or build their own. As for concerns that allowing composite tubs will automatically result in raised costs, I'll remind everyone that although composite tub DSRs have been legal for years, not one single such car has made its way into the class. The higher costs of DSR are the result of many factors, but composite tubs is not among them.

Stan

[Marshall Mauney]

Actually you need more radiator and you need a big oil cooler. [...] The radiator and cooler on my DSR are much bigger than the ones on my FC. Carnut 169 had to go to bigger side pods to cram his radiators into, from what I can see of his car.

From a FC starting point, you're probably right. I was thinking about my F500 - snowmobile engines need LOTS of cooling to live in SEDiv events My car runs two VW rabbit radiators and still can get pretty hot.....far more cooling surface area than is on my Triumph 955 (although it does have an oil cooler, come to think of it).

[Art Smith]

Stan-


horizontal made it back into the page four draft; configuration control or intentional??

B. Bodywork and Airfoils: Maximum dimensions per Formula Continental rules.
1. 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



Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[John]

Just for the record, I am a former Karter. I went to DSR when it was cheap and cars were light. I think that for the road race and shifter karters they would not find this class intimidating at all. It will be interesting to see if the restrictor keeps the cost down. I have my motors done by George Dean now. The cost of a build by George is expensive but much less than a new FC motor.

When I started I put my own motors together (I had the head ported and did the rest at with home with some help from my friends in DSR) I won the North East Division and qualifed 5th at the runoffs, so they were good enough. I would think that the ideal situation would be that a well informed person could assemble an engine at home that is very close to the one that comes off the DYNO from an engine builder. One idea might be to eliminate anything other than stock cams, or to not allow retiming of cams, that is were things get complicated from a home builder perspective. Time will tell if this would be necessary. What happened to the 25 lbs for fuel injection? I think that is a good idea, the FCs that are converted will be using carbs as it much easier to install.

John

[sidney]

Sean, Did you get those pics. I'm interested to see if things have changed at all from the car they showed at the runoffs in '01. Thanks.

Ian

[Stan Clayton]

Art, just my inattention to detail, since corrected...

John, we don't want to introduce any more items that need to be checked by tech than absolutely neccessary, so no cam specs, timing restrictions, etc. The SIR will make all of that irrelevant. Several folks wrote to me saying that they wanted late model FI engines to be the standard, so that's the way I left it.

Stan

[jerry freeman]

I think the last draft of rules will work. I also think that carbon tubs will eventually run some people off. I know they are safer, new technology, etc.. and will eventually be what the winners run. I can live with them if they are not required. I can't win on my budget in any class. If the width of the body is limited to FC spec. I don't see a big problem with tunnels. I would think it's a lot cheaper to build tunnels than buy a carbon tub.

[Craig]

I have a question about the SIR. Is the 25mm dia what will actually be used? I would have to think that will cause some big problems if the engine is trying to breath through that 1" hole. What happens when you cover part of the carb inlet on an engine- you choke it, quite literally. For those of us planning to run carbed engines, will this same thing (extremely rich mixture) not happen at higher RPM, when the demand for air is greatest? The FI engines won't be any better off without a recalibrated MAP sensor. Forgive me if I'm overlooking something, just a thought that occurred to me.

Craig

[jonbaytos]

Dear Stan, I would not limit the width at FC #'s. This rule is clearly outdated with respect to the rest of the world.If persons want to run an ex FC chassis at that width maybe allow it, but not mandate it.For safety reasons if nothing else.Even if you have a carbon chassis it won't be any safer without some side impact space to be swallowed.On your comment about the fact that no carbon DSR has been built although it is legal.Let's say that one appears and it wins races would the perception not be that this is the way to go?And if so do you not believe that the cost would go up considerably?It is our exsperience at Van Diemen that carbon versus steel is 100% different in price.Also one should consider that repair in most cases is a strip and ship proposition.More money and time than most people have that you are trying to reach.This should really be a class that reaches the 400+ racers that FSCCA missed.I can quickly see this reaching the 75,000.00 range without some careful thought.O n the subject on this being attractive to Karters.When we were doing our testing at our track there happened to be some very high level ICA kart guys using the short circuit.We decided to find out if in fact this would appeal to them.Having never driven any kind of race car we put the same driver in for 10 laps in a formula ford 2000 Zetec,and then gave him 10 in the Formula 1000.His comments were simple and direct."This is the one that I want" sitting in the Formula 1000.I would also say that an open diff seems to be a waste.why make the people that are converting spend the extra doe, and add the to the complexity.Maybe wheel spin should be part of the fun and challenge.What about 3rd spring systems, DSSV dampers it looks like they will be around 9000.00 for a set of 4.Hydraulic leveling should also be banned.

[RobLav]

I pondered the aero rules in my sleep, and came up with a compromise:

How about flat bottom (with a tolerance) from the firewall forward? And free behind it. That way, we don't get too involved in the tunnel stuff, it's easier to police, and allows some of us tinkerers to play with the aero in diffusors.

Also agree in providing more car width around the cockpit area - for increased cooling, driver protection, and some additional aero underbody area.

[carnut169]

I never got the new VD pic from Brad...

[size=2][size=1]Can't say that I would agree that the conversions will all use carbs b/c they are easier. FI does not require jetting, tuning etc. FI is not really harder to install + the motors are everywhere and all of the latest motors will have FI. I really can't imagine why someone would elect to go carb in a conversion.[/size] [/size]

25mm was just a guess. Actual sir size will have to be figured out.

[Stan Clayton]

If it turns out to be impractical to fit adequate cooling for a liter bike motor inside stock FC sidepods we can change the standard. I do know from running a Stohr DSR that the engines take quite large water and oil coolers. Measurement J (maximum body width behind the front wheels) is currently 95 cm for FC. We can reset it to whatever we feel is needed. I know that one recently converted F1000 is 101 cm. Shall we reset it to 105 cm?

Buudrow1, I can't speak to VD's cost (or price!) structure, but I do know that absolutely no quantified safety standards are applied to tube frame chassis, while composite tubs face a full battery of dynamic and static load testing that objectively verifies their safety performance. If tube frame chassis had to pass these same tests, their cost would reflect that as well. Yes, composite chassis have to be (by SCCA rules) repaired at constructor-approved facilities. I have done so 3 times in the past 8 years to my Ralt, but never was it terribly expensive nor time consuming. In any event, a composite tub isn't going to be required in F1000, just as it isn't in FA, but it will be permitted for those who want that extra measure of safety.

That said, issues of cost are legitimate concerns, but where does it stop? Data acquisition systems are costly and confer a performance advantage, yet offer no safety enhancement. Limited slip differentials do the same, along with bigger tires and wheels, better brakes and dampers...the list goes on and on. Short of a tightly controlled spec series, there is no way to cap costs in racing. What we can do is create a more-or-less level playing field and let the racers have at it.

Rob, I haven't heard a hue and cry over the bottom aero, so l suggest we leave it alone. Besides, cambered surfaces don't neccessarily produce more downforce than flat bottoms, they just do so more reliably and less sensitively. Besides, I think that the typical tinkerer who is attracted to this class is going to want to experiment with it - witness Sean's remarks. And in any case, the limited room under these narrow sidepods isn't going to permit Atlantic-style tunnels.

Stan

[jonbaytos]

Stan,sorry you feel that way.Here are some pics of our prototype.The finished chassis will be quite a bit different,depending on the rules.It could be 35,000.00 with new GSXR or 55,000.00 it will depend on what the rules say.

[David Ferguson]

I think limiting the number of forward gears to 6 is short sighted. Since the Engines are "production", why don't you just say that the number of gears can not be more than was available in the production engine's transmission. It's unlikely that the number of gears will have any significant effect on either cost or performance.

[carnut169]

If that car is $35,000 new, FSCCA is in real trouble. Lap times up w/ a 2006 Zetec?!? Image what happens when it is fully developed and gets to run a diffuser. I'm w/ the karter... think he would have liked the FSCCA car?

Why the $20,000 swing? Carbon tub? Forget it!

I would prefer no width limits (perhaps no wider than the outside of the wheels) so people can build tunnels if they want to. Why not? It also will allow for larger pods if stock pods do not allow sufficient cooling (btw- I think they will be fine w/ two radiators and the right flow) also, my pods are stock 96 side pods.

Lets keep our eyes on the prize....

[Stan Clayton]

Buudrow1, what do you mean that you're sorry I feel that way? What way? That I feel safety is important enough to permit modern composite tubs? I don't feel sorry about that at all.

By the way, who are you? Your profile doesn't list any information, and I prefer to know who I am addressing.

Also, the statement "It could be 35,000.00 with new GSXR or 55,000.00 it will depend on what the rules say." doesn't make sense to me in the context of what I've written.

Stan

[carnut169]

[size=2][size=1]Stan- thats Brad Baytos. I also did not understand what he meant when he said he was sorry you felt that way... [/size] [/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2][/size]

[jonbaytos]

Stan,I meant sorry that you feel that carbon is so ness for safety reasons.FC chassis have competed at over hundreds of oval events with speeds approaching 160 mph accidents were plenty and the safety record speaks for itself.You will find that all Van Diemen's over the years are built to very stringet FIA standards and to some degree dumbed down for use in the SCCA. There are some designers about that would disagree with your assesment.It really depends on the application. Did I miss it, are you requiring crash testing?The point being a poorly designed carbon tub is no safer than a poorly designed steel one. Thanks Jon Baytos

[Mike B]

So Jon, does that car fit the rules as Stan has them laid out? If not, what would have to be changed? Can you give us a little background on the development of the car? I doubt that it was brought here in response to the previous F1000 discussions on Apexspeed or formula1000.com. What is the business plan?

I like the idea of keeping the body width relatively narrow so that everyone has an equal opportunity to develop tunnels. If it's wider, converted FA cars would have an advantage in the underbody vs. a converted FC. Sure, a converted FC can upgrade to wider side pods but now you've just added unnecessary cost. My vote is to only make it as wide as needed for cooling, and my hunch is that it's wide enough at 95cm. What is the width of the VD in the photos?

There's no question that a carbon tub would be safer than a tube frame, but there's also no question that a carbon tub would provide higher performance. Let's face it, if someone tried to introduce a tube frame FA, it would get its A$$ handed to it. I agreee with Jon's statement regarding the safety of the FC cars, and could also hold up DSR as an example. Their speeds are probably close to what the F1000 will be and they're primarily tube frame. Ask Matt Conrad about the safety in a crash. I'm still undecided about the carbon tub. I'm afraid it could lead the class down the wrong path at some point.

[Stan Clayton]

Thank you, Jon, but I feel that the verified additional safety offered by tested composite tubs makes it worth permitting them in the class. The FIA may have design specs for tube frames, but SCCA has none. Nor is there any crash testing requirement for them as is required for ALL composite tubs. And BTW, SCCA does not permit untested "home built" composite tubs. All composite designs have to pass FIA crash and static load testing.

And let me be quite clear on this...I have never said nor implied that I think tube frame chassis are unsafe. FC does have a good safety record. But 180 hp in a 900 lbs car is a very different proposition to 140 hp in a 1190 lbs car. And if anybody has not been doing any figuring, let me give you some food for thought...

A Ralt RT-41 Formula Atlantic must weigh 1255 lbs and makes about 250 hp. That's 5.0 pounds per horsepower.

A typical FC makes 140 hp. Divide that into 1190 lbs and you get 8.5 lbs per horsepower.

An F1000 makes 180 hp and weighs 900 lbs. That's 5.0 lbs per hp.

Do the math...these things will run circles around an FC and will give a full blown Atlantic fits on all but the fastest road courses.

I think safety is important for these cars.

Stan

[carnut169]

180 is very optimistic...


bet its closer to 150 at the wheels- 950lbs/ 150hp= 6.33



Also, if my experiece w/ the Grants (at the ARRC) was any indication we are no where close to true FA times. Perhaps closer than a FC once developed but it would take something crazy to give them fits.

[John]

I can send you my dyno sheets if you like...

Over 180 at the rear gear is no problem, but that is before the restrictor. Your loss from there is bearings and CV joints to the tire.

It might be good to have george dean whip up a restrictor and try the HP on a built and non built motor.

[Stan Clayton]

Sean, all of the numbers I quoted were at the engine, not at the wheels.

That said, the '04 Kawasaki ZX-10R makes 164 hp AT THE REAR TIRE, bone stock.

Source: SportRider

Add in your favorite number for drive train losses (10%...12%?) and you are at or over 180 engine hp, and that's before adding a racing exhaust and a PC module. Oh yeah, I'm confident of 180 engine hp.

But let's use your weight of 950 lbs. That's still 5.3 lbs/hp. No, that won't beat a good Atlantic, but it will leave an FC for dead!

I love this idea!

Stan

[D.T. Benner]

Jon Batos. Is the car in the pic's a tube frame or carbon? If it's a tube frame is the $20.000 difference what it would cost in carbon? Thanks.