F1000 Rules Discussion

[jonbaytos]

D.T. it is chrome moly and it will have a carbon driver cell.The 20,000.00 diff is what thing's can go to for instance Dynamic DSSV dampers or Koni 8212's Quaife limited slip diff or 2003 Ford Escort.Just a point that this does not have to cost a fortune to be safe and fast and fun.

[Stan Clayton]

Wow...very cool, Jon!

How about some basic data on the car? Dimensions, weight, engine and power? Fast as a pro-Zetec, eh? Anybody think that it won't leave a Continental for dead?

Stan

[jonbaytos]

Thank's Stan here it is
weight 850 less driver and reverse system
Stock Suzuki GSXR 05' 170 + hp sealed by Elan Power
track frt-68" rear - 65"
wheelbase 98" but will probably grow
wings are off 06' Zetec but this will probably change
diffuser is fairly basic but this changing as we speak
chassis has 40mm step as per FIA at the sidepod ledge
width at the pods is 125cm but may change with the new pods
single water rad and oil cooler
AP four pot radial mount calipers and PFC Floating disc & pads
Cast alloy upright with built in wheel speed position/wheel bearing guarenteed for 3 years
AIM data logger standard ready to log withdata stream to ECU
Free diff
O.Z. 8"& 12" wheels alloy or mag
ATL dry break refueling
Submerged Bosch fuel pump
Dynamic Triple adjustable dampers
Cockpit adjustable bars and brake balance
will fit driver 6,4" 250 lbs
Bonded alloy floor with 6mm Jabrock skid across entire bottom side
Rigid shift linkage no cable
can mount clutch control on wheel for left foot brake assy
Stainless steel exhaust system

[D.T. Benner]

Wheel bearings Guaranteed for 3 years! At LAST something on a race car that comes with a GUARANTEE! I remember when I took a bearing to a Bearing Supply wherhouse to try to find a generic match. The counter guy ask me "whats this for" when I said a race car he said "No WAY!-You guys can break ball bearings in a sandbox with a rubber hammer!"

[JEREMY HILL]

[size=2]stan, thanks again for your help at run-offs, i am following this thread with obvious interest, i think you are on track with your rules suggestions, but think you should keep it simple so a guy can build his own car ,no carbon chassis, and forget the compression ratio restriction, to difficult to police and not neccesary, i really like your final rule as i would still like to play and or sell my car, regards jeremy[/size]

[Stan Clayton]

Hey Jeremy, good to hear from you!

There is no intent on my part of restrict CR. I was just wondering what the CRs are to help me get an idea of what size of SIR might be needed, and heck, not even that is cast in stone.

As I have mentioned earlier, the cornerstone of the class would obviously be converted FCs, but there aren't enough out there to get a class off the ground if we rely soley on guys doing them one at a time in their garages. To really kick-start this idea, we are going to need manufacturer support, which is why I am pleased that the Van Diemen folks are interested. Other constructors have also expressed interest as well, which is very exciting to me. Of course, that may mean some dimensions need to deviate from purely FC limits, but since this has proved problematic for one-offs as well, I don't see it as a show-stopper.

Take care! Stan

[Mike B]

I hope everyone made it to the new section! Thanks to Doug Carter for giving us our own spot to develop the rules and F1000 in general.

I've started by splitting out Stan's post that has his most recent proposal and making it sticky. I hope Stan will keep it up to date as the discussion evolves. For individual rule discussions, it might be best to start a new thread. Like the carbon tub thread I started.

Let 'er rip!

[Stan Clayton]

Thank you Doug for giving this concept a home!

And yes, I will continue to post updates to keep you in the loop. In the past couple of days I have spoken with reps from most all the DSR constructors, a couple of engine builders and several FC constructors, and they are all very supportive of the idea, as well.

Regards, Stan

[formulasuper]

I know I'm probably the only Ralt RT5 SuperVee owner converting to motorcycle power at this time but I still think the SuperVees should be included in the F1000 rules. This car is a great candidate for a motorcycle engine/tranny conversion with the engine compartment be larger than needed for the Hayabusa engine or any other combination engine/tranny. It should be close to the 900 lb total weight and is a strong, lightweight, safe chassis. Fits a 5'10" 180 lb or less driver. I know there are many SuperVees out there not being used because it takes a fortune to try to compete with it in FA & truthfully, your just "spinning your wheels" if you try! I am using the Hayabusa engine because I started this conversion before F1000 was conceived & was planning to run in FS. However, it appears there will be a larger field in F1000 to compete with & like was previously stated, a larger engine with a SIR would last longer. I would also be willing to run with a weight penalty in lieu of a SIR if that's what is decided. I plan on keeping the Busa stock, other than dry sump, if it's included in the F1000 class rules.

[se3 racer]

If the class becomes a reality and has the right set of rules is put in place I WILL convert my rf 92/95. It would be great to see rules to keep things on the cheap, a build up like Sean's is the perfect example of what a F1000 should be.
Tyler

[Stan Clayton]

Formulasuper, your chassis and engine are legal under the rules I have proposed. Stan

[formulasuper]

Thanks Stan, I'll continue watch the progress of the rules proposal and to build & prepare my car with the intent of running in F1000.

[Radicalone]

Stan,
I don't see how you could fit a SV into the rules you have preposed.Their body appears to be way beyond 95cm wide.
John

[RobLav]

We are going to re-look at the width of the body issue. 95cm is too small. We want to increase some width, but not too much. We also need to look at what the new Van Diemen's width is. I think it might be too wide though. In any case, I owe Stan C an strawman input on body dimensions.

[Marshall Mauney]

We are going to re-look at the width of the body issue. 95cm is too small. We want to increase some width, but not too much. We also need to look at what the new Van Diemen's width is. I think it might be too wide though. In any case, I owe Stan C an strawman input on body dimensions.

Why not leave it open for sidepods and allow body width between the front and rear wheels to be anything up "track width less one tire width" (i.e., out to the middle of the tires)? If ground effects are the issue, then require the sidepods to be flat-bottomed.

Out of curiosity, why would you restrict body width between the wheels to begin with?

[formulasuper]

I agree, of course, that side pods should be free. Wider is safer, helps prevent wheels from interlocking with another car. Some classes require wider pods just for that reason.

[RobLav]

OK - thanks for the comments. How about to the inner edge of the rear wheels?

[Marshall Mauney]

How about to the inner edge of the rear wheels?

That wouldn't provide much protection from wheel-to-wheel contact. Out to the centerline of the rear wheels seems more prudent.

[Craig]

Is wheel-to-wheel contact really a large problem in FC? While I'm all for safety, it seems these cars are evolving from converted FC and similar to high end formula cars. The small(er) width of the cars now help reduce frontal area and therefore allow them to have less drag. IMHO, if everyone seems to agree that 95cm is too narrow, maybe only increase to 105 or possibly 125cm to allow that Van Dieman to be able to compete.

Craig

[Mike B]

I may be wrong on this, but I was unaware that there is an open-wheel class that requires wider side pods expressly to prevent wheel-to-wheel contact. Like Craig, I was also unaware that there is a problem of same in FC, or FA, or FF (with apologies to Ricardo Vassmer .) If there's a concern with that, put a full body on it and call it DSR.

Let's face it, the proposed rules can't be everything to everyone and there will always be some one that doesn't get what they want, be it carbon tubs, carbon brakes, or 360 degree nerf bars. What this rule package will do is provide a starting point for builders, both homebuilt and manufacturers, to have a guideline to build to. Once there are cars on the track, it will become apparent what things need to change.

The only reason I would want to stretch the side pods is if there is a problem cooling the bike engines, and possibly to allow the Van Diemen to play. I see no reason to have side pods that are as wide as the wheels or even half the wheels. I also believe the standard FC side pods will be plenty big enough. Limiting the width will also limit tunnel size (a plus in my book.)

I would really like to hear what some of the manufacturers think is reasonable (not their wish list.)

[carnut169]

FWIW- wheel to wheel contact happens all the time. I don't see a problem with allowing whatever width pods people want to run.

[Marshall Mauney]

I may be wrong on this, but I was unaware that there is an open-wheel class that requires wider side pods expressly to prevent wheel-to-wheel contact.

F500.

Like Craig, I was also unaware that there is a problem of same in FC, or FA, or FF (with apologies to Ricardo Vassmer .)

FA allows sidepods, If I read the rules correctly.

The only reason I would want to stretch the side pods is if there is a problem cooling the bike engines, and possibly to allow the Van Diemen to play. I see no reason to have side pods that are as wide as the wheels or even half the wheels. I also believe the standard FC side pods will be plenty big enough. Limiting the width will also limit tunnel size (a plus in my book.)

I depends on how much radiator you need to run. Currently, I'm running two rather large VW rads, that use up almost all of the width of my sidepods (~51" total, IIRC - I'm too lazy to go measure). You'd have a tough time getting that much cooling area into the space allowed by the existing rules proposal.

[Craig]

Wheel-to-wheel contact may happen, but is it a real problem? Sure it will damage suspension, but isnt that part of OPEN WHEEL racing? I'm not suggesting I am right and everyone is wrong, but it seems that the whole idea behind getting this class going was targeting converted FC's. Running huge sidepods for tunnels makes this more like MC powered FA.

Marshall - Are you saying the reason F500's have wide bodywork is ONLY to prevent wheel-to-wheel contact? Seems to me that is more dictated by the fact that the cars are quite small and need some impact resistance and room for cooling/fuel cells, IMHO. Maybe I'm wrong.

Also, a stock MC only has maybe 24 or 30 sq inches of radiator area, so possibly there is an air flow issue. I think if anything people can raise the height of the sidepods for additional cooling area rather than increase the width of the car.

I guess my opinion is that this class should remain true to the original FC based cars.

[Mike B]

Marshall,
All the classes allow side pods (except maybe FV). I don't profess to know the origin of the F500 rule, but I doubt that it was written EXPRESSLY to prevent wheel-to-wheel contact. If that were the case, FV, FF, FC, and FA would all require super-wide side pods with the wheels barely exposed.
Are your large VW rads used to cool a 1000cc four stroke engine? Let's stick with comparing apples to apples.
To settle this portion of the rules (yeah, right ) I'm inclined to set the max width between the wheels at 125cm, if for no other reason than to include the VD car as-is. This stays fairly close to my original vision of converted FC cars.

[RobLav]

Agree Mike.

[Marshall Mauney]

I guess my opinion is that this class should remain true to the original FC based cars.

If this is really what you're after, then why not just copy the entire section but change the engine section?

I'm not trying to be flippant here - I'm really asking this question. If the goal for the class is to be able to run what is effectively CFC with an engine swap to a bike mill, then I'm not sure why ANY changes from FC would be allowed.

OTOH, if the goal is to create a new class based on literbike engines, then shouldn't there be some willingness to depart from the existing classes?

If the only reason for adopting a rule is 'that's what my old FC is built like', then it's really CFC1000, right? I would also ask where you want this class to be, performance-wise, WRT FC, FA, and FSCCA. Liter bike engines will probably be overdogs in FC, but not quick enough for FA - rather like FSCCA today, right? Is the idea to be a "poor man's" regional fast FC, a replacement for FC, or a competitor to FSCCA?

[Mike B]

Um, I kind of DID start out by just copying the FC chassis rules and the DSR MC engine rules. Since then other people have chimed in wanting their idea of F1000 to be included. I've been trying to accomodate most of them that are near the formula to increase potential car counts, like converted SV's. I'm afraid that might cloud the concept so I'm almost thinking of going back to the original vision that was essentially FC with a MC engine.

At no point did any of the discussion mention the age of the car. It's just economics that results in most of the conversions being "older" Van Diemens. I fully expect someone to convert an RF99+ at some point and have been contacted by owners that are considering it.
I'm also not concerned with deciding what the performance of these cars should be. Let's just lay out a set of reasonable rules that are buildable by the known builders like VD, Piper, Citation, et al, and see where the performance falls.

[Dave Gomberg]

Mike B:

I understand you had a basic idea in mind when this got started and that other folks are bringing different ideas to the party that may not jibe well with your original concept. However, there is something you need understand: once a proposal for F1000 goes to the CRB, it is out of your hands. The CRB will ask the Formula and Sports Racer Advisory Committee for input. It will put a general call for member input. All of this will be sifted together and, if the CRB thinks the result is a good one, it will recommend it to the BoD. By the time that happens, there may be lots of changes to the original proposal.

Now, there is a way to minimize those changes. Earlier, I outlined a structure for the proposal. The first part of that is a "why are we here" section - sometimes called a "Statement of Philosophy" or some other high-fallutin title. The problem that you guys are having is that no one has sat down to write such a thing. Until that happens, you are doing a design for a car without without having a plan. You guys are arguing details without a high level agreement on what you are trying to do. (This is the difference between a top-down design and a bottom-up design. It is well-known that bottom-up designs fail most of the time.) If there is a clear statement of intent, then the rules will follow easily and the CRB, the advisory committee and the BoD will know whether you have something that works or not. The closer the rules follow the statement of intent, the less likely it is that any of the reviewing bodies will find reasons to change it.

Please note that I am not taking sides on what F1000 should be (I would like to see it succeed if there are enough members who want to have such a class). I am trying to help get you where you need be.

Dave

[Mike B]

Dave,
Understood and agreed. My mistake was assuming that most people had visited www.formula1000.com and read the concise, albeit brief, description of F1000. My plan in the next few days was to start putting together a Mission Statement or Statement of Philosophy that builds on that simple premise. Then recruit members for a committee to bring some order to the concept and create a coherent proposal for the CRB. I see that the ensuing discussions may be putting the cart before the horse and we should back off a bit and start at the top.

I have a few people in mind for a committee. Volunteers?

[RobLav]

Sure Mike, You know I'll volunteer. Agree we need the philosophy statements nailed down first.

[redlinep1]

I am just wondering when to expect a final decision on the rules for this class. I am holding of on a project untill such time. Anyone have a date?
Mike

[Mike B]

We will sell no wine before its time. Or something.

Seriously, if you build to the FC rules you'll be safe. Any deviations from that rule will go beyond the FC rules (as opposed to more restrictive) so consider FC the base. For now.
At least that's what I'm building my car(s) to. For now.

We could have the rules nailed down in a couple weeks (or even days) but the process of petitioning and gaining the acceptance of the CRB and the BoD might take much longer, likely depending on the quality of the proposal. Even if it isn't accepted, you can still run in FS.

[R. Pare]

Here's my 2 cents (or whatever you may think it's worth!):

The class rules must jive with whatever is the underlying philosophy for the class. If it is to provide a fast but reletively low cost car, then the rules must do the following at the start:

1 - Allow conversion of existing cars, with a minimum of necessary changes to items not part of the drive train.

2 - Allow the home tinkerer to build/convert without having to be a complete car engineer with a fabrication or composits shop rivaling Penske's.

3 - Be based on a readily available series of engines.

4 - Keep any performance gains creep to the same sort of pace seen currently in FF & FC - ie - very slow.

To this end, I suggest strongly that you keep at first to the FC rules, lock, stock, and barrel (except min weight and differential). Do not allow tunnels, monster wings, bigger tires, etc. These cars will be fast enough as is - allowing upgrades that will substantially decrease braking zones and/or increase cornering g's will only serve to have guys find that many existing suspension and brake systems systems aren't up to the task. Definetly adds to the expense, and possibly to the danger.

If any upgrades are to be mandated, stick to safety items - increased kevlar thickness in the side panels and nose cone, mandated quantity of attachment of those side panels, interior paneling and padding, head surrounds, bead seats, etc - you get the drift.

If at some point in the future the class becomes popular enough to either get single class status, or becomes the vast majority of cars in FA, then a re-look at the rules can be done to see if there are any (b)necessary(/b) changes, vs I-just-want-to-go-faster changes.

[Craig]

Not to jump the gun here, but to go along with the upgrades for safety purposes, I would suggest possibly to follow the discussion in the FC section about ICP calipers. I like the idea of better brakes which are cheaper and lighter, however finding such a replacement isnt the hard part. Modifying the uprights to mount such a caliper will be the real challenge. Thoughts?

Craig

[formulasuper]

In section 17.1.6 Formula Category, subsection E, Formula 500, para. E.9 of the GCR it states "Bodywork behind the front wheels & forward of the rear wheels shall extend to within one inch of a line connecting the outer edges of the front & rear tires." I goes on to state "Sidepods are intended to restrict wheel entanglement between cars."
Sounds like safety was a determining factor to this rule.

[Mike B]

I stand corrected. Again.

Just 'cause it's there, doesn't mean it's a GOOD rule...