F1000 Rules Proposal

[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]

Stan's proposal with changes made to reflect recent carbon tub poll:

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

A. Chassis: Aluminum 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.

[S Lathrop]

I would suggest that the chassis rules be unchanged from the current FF/FC. The advantage of aluminum monocoque for ultimate strenght will favor that construction over tube frame. The aluminum tub is more costly to build and less durable. When aluminum tubs were the fassion, the top teams had two tubs per car and would change out and rebuild each tub once to twice a season. The temptation to push the envelope as Swift did with the DB4 would be way too much for constructors.

Again the emphasis should be on appropriate technology for the end users -- the SCCA club racer. With careful thought you can write rules for a formula car class with awsome performance and at a very reasonable price. I would estimate construction cost for new cars at $30,000 new and entry level cars at $10,000. With volume and shareing components among manufacturers you could drive the costs lower.

I would think seriously about lifting the restriction on airfoil construction. It may be that carbon is the cheepest way to build. It needs to be studdied. I don't know.

In an earlier post Stan addressed the safety of the chassis construction. Currently the GCR requires heavy wall tubing as diagonal braces in the cockpit bay. I know that the Citations that I have produced since '94 meet the rules but I don't think any one else does. If we were to enforce that rule and increase the thickness of the side body panels from the foot box to the roll bar to say .060in (that would be 8 layers of Kevlar vacumed bagged) the crash protection of a tube frame would equal a monocogue.

I would think about restriction brakes to 2 piston calipers. 2 piston calipers will run from $100 to $300 which is the price range for current calipers. 4 pistons are double that. Wilwood calipers are cheep but Brembo, Alcon, AP and PF are not($600 to $1500 each).


I would put a lot more study into the engine restrictions. The AMA races these engines. We should see what their experience is. Talk to the manufacturers. Air restrictors could lead to very costly engine development programs as the ECU were never programed for manifold vacume readings that would result from air restrictors. An alternative would be to dyno all the allowable engines and rev limit them to 155 hp., say 11000 or 12000 rpm. Each make of motor runs a required ECU. You control the ECUs by collecting the ECU prior to the race and drawing for the one you use in the race. Maybe a single ECU will work for all engines. I don't know but it will be one of the tougher issues to get right.

Steve Lathrop

[jerry freeman]

Steve,

I'm came from the drag racing world. I don't know where formula car guys buy parts from, but you can get a set of 4 piston calipers from Strange eng. or Mark Williams for $400. Seem to me that every time I call a parts supplier from a road racing book they want about 3 times what a drag racing supplier wants for the same parts. As for the aluminum tub chassis goes, I have one and you're right about it being easy to bend. I 'm also building a steel tube car for the future because I want a safer car. I personally don't care either way on the tub rule as long as you don't let carbon fiber in. but, there are other people with aluminum tub SV's that are converting and you would probably make a few of them mad. As far as carbon fiber being cheaper to build things out of, that is WRONG. Even if it is cheaper for a manufacturer they will charge you a lot of money because they can. This class started as a cheap way to race a formula car in FS and now it's about to get out of hand before it gets started.

[jerry freeman]

[size=2]Forgot to put this in the last post. I think keeping it close to FC rules is the way to go. If you want to keep things reasonably cheap then you should ban carbon fiber and titanium. PERIOD.[/size]

[formulasuper]

FYI: Ralt SV sidepods are about 127 cm wide.

[Stan Clayton]

I would suggest that the chassis rules be unchanged from the current FF/FC. The advantage of aluminum monocoque for ultimate strenght will favor that construction over tube frame. The aluminum tub is more costly to build and less durable. When aluminum tubs were the fassion, the top teams had two tubs per car and would change out and rebuild each tub once to twice a season. The temptation to push the envelope as Swift did with the DB4 would be way too much for constructors.

While Steve's comments might be appropriate if alloy tubs were current technology, I strongly suspect that we will see only a relative handful of these older cars converted, and to outlaw them because of this strikes me as an over-reaction. Besides, they already race in CSR and FA...are we to outlaw them because they will run with 300 lbs less weight and 50 less hp? Doesn't make sense to me.

I would think seriously about lifting the restriction on airfoil construction. It may be that carbon is the cheepest way to build. It needs to be studdied. I don't know.

I agree with Steve, and don't see us mandating aluminum wings.

In an earlier post Stan addressed the safety of the chassis construction. Currently the GCR requires heavy wall tubing as diagonal braces in the cockpit bay. I know that the Citations that I have produced since '94 meet the rules but I don't think any one else does. If we were to enforce that rule and increase the thickness of the side body panels from the foot box to the roll bar to say .060in (that would be 8 layers of Kevlar vacumed bagged) the crash protection of a tube frame would equal a monocogue.

I don't see us restricting in-fill or surface safety panels for this class. From what I am being told, the restrictions in the GCR for FC were intended to prevent chassis stiffening, which I don't feel should be our emphasis in F1000. You can run a bone-stock converted FC if you want, but I can't see precluding Stohr-style infills.

I would think about restriction brakes to 2 piston calipers. 2 piston calipers will run from $100 to $300 which is the price range for current calipers. 4 pistons are double that. Wilwood calipers are cheep but Brembo, Alcon, AP and PF are not($600 to $1500 each).

Again, if folks want to stay with FC technology to convert an FC as inexpensively as possible, that's fine, but to mandate this in the face of very affordable 4-piston calipers from Wilwood, Rebel and others is just a non-starter for me.

I would put a lot more study into the engine restrictions. The AMA races these engines. We should see what their experience is. Talk to the manufacturers. Air restrictors could lead to very costly engine development programs as the ECU were never programed for manifold vacume readings that would result from air restrictors. An alternative would be to dyno all the allowable engines and rev limit them to 155 hp., say 11000 or 12000 rpm. Each make of motor runs a required ECU. You control the ECUs by collecting the ECU prior to the race and drawing for the one you use in the race. Maybe a single ECU will work for all engines. I don't know but it will be one of the tougher issues to get right.

I haven't yet contacted the AMA, but from speaking with a couple of experienced DSR engine builders, there does not appear to be any problem keeping the ECU happy with an SIR. What they HAVE said, though, is that using an SIR may actually raise engines costs if we do not restrict compression ratio and head porting. We will be looking further into this, but we may well end up with some engine prep restrictions in addition to an SIR.

Stan

[Stan Clayton]

FYI: Ralt SV sidepods are about 127 cm wide.

There are a couple of other existing cars at or slightly above 125 cm, so we will be looking at this with an open eye. Perhaps we'll need to set the max width at 130 cm. I know that 95 cm is the FC width, but that doesn't even work for the FC's already actually converted, since they need additional room for radiators.

[S Lathrop]

I am confused about what is intended by this set of rules.

Are we writing rules to encourage the manufacturing of new cars or are we trying to write rules to allow a large number of existing cars to be converted to motorcycle power and compete?

Are we trying to build cars at in the around $30,000? Or do we want $50,000 plus race cars?

If costis the purpose of this exercise then the FF/FC rules should be the base from which we start. Change just a few of the restrictions of the FF/FC class and you will escalate the cost of new cars.

You are right about aluminum monocoque tubs being old technology. But at the end of that erea tubs were bonded aluminum skin and honey comb structures, very strong, very light, and very expensive. Once the structure started to delaminate the whole thing was junk. If such technology is allowed I would have to design to it because of the competitive advantage. Look at the Swift DB4 experience. This technology will add a minimum $10,000 to $20,000 to the cost of the basic car.

I know that Wilwood brakes are cheep. But the Formula SCCA car did not use Wilwood brakes. They used AP units at $500 each. We just added $1200 to the cost of building a car. If there is a performance advantage then it will be the standard.

Engines are not my business. I agree that they need to be reduced in power to 150/160 bhp. What ever we do should keep the engines as close to stock as possible. Ideally the engines should be fully competitive as delivered in a new stock condition. Again start allowing any preparation above stock and up go the costs.

We have decades of experience with the FF/FC set of rules. These cars still require very good engineering to build competitive cars. The advantage is that the tooling is very inexpensive. In low volume production we can cut the cost of tube fabrication by having all the tubes CNC bent and coped. The assembly time is cut by two thirds. To do a composite tub you will spend $250,000 in tooling, compared to a few thousand dollars for a chassis fixture.

Obsolete technology implies no improvement after some point. In 1978 when I built the Zink Z16, we tested that car at 1000 ft lbs. per degree torsional regidity. An aluminum monocoque Zink Z14 FSV was 4000 ft lbs. per degree (that car weighed 872 lbs with balast). The last Citation FF we tested was 5000 ft lbs per degree. Based on our FEA modeling, we expect the new Zetec FC to come in at better than 6000 ft lbs per degree. The frame weights have declined from about 110 lbs to less than 80 lbs for the latest car.

Right now you have two people in this country with proven models ready to produce cars to the current FF/FC rules not to mention the imports. D sports is heading for a trouble because there is almost no limit to the cost of one of those cars. I can see the F1000 costing half the price of a new DSR and delivering equal or better performance.

As an aside, Richard has just completed the new Variloc chain drive differential. This is step one in building an F1000.

[Mike B]

There are a couple of other existing cars at or slightly above 125 cm, so we will be looking at this with an open eye. Perhaps we'll need to set the max width at 130 cm. I know that 95 cm is the FC width, but that doesn't even work for the FC's already actually converted, since they need additional room for radiators.

Two questions for Stan:
1) How many converted FCs are running? I know of two.
2) Who is "we"?

I'm in the process of assembling a crack committee to develop a proposal for F1000, including a vision for the class, a rules package, and a strategy for getting recognized by the SCCA. The ball is in my court and I need to call the members to get things rolling. I dropped the ball this week and apologize to those members.
Steve L's and Richard P's suggestions carry quite a bit of weight in my opinion, given that they know more about building cars and the business of building (and selling) cars than most people reading this. To that end, I get the feeling that the rules will look similar to FC, with some logical improvements. The two recent polls support this approach, and it might be an easier sell if the package is something that could be assimilated into an existing class (FC) in the future. I'd like the discussion to continue but rest assured that there is a group of us working in the background on making this a reality. If you feel strongly about this class (in a positive sense) drop me a line to be a part of the committee.

[Lee Stohr]

A philosophy for F1000 certainly needs to be formed.
Is it an entry level class?
Is it to be FC with bike engines?
Is it to be an all new class, to compete with FM, FBMW, etc?
Who will be attracted to the class? Should there be a target entrant?

Some points to consider:
1) Wilwood brake calipers work fine on our DSR's.
2) Everyone on the internet says they want a brand new race car for under $30,000.
There are no such cars. You can't buy the parts for that. Chain drive diffs cost $2500.
Shocks another $2500. etc.
3) If you think a class can be formed by homebuilders, look at DSR. Very few homebuilders exist anymore. DSR almost died when it depended on homebuilders. It's the new, turn-key DSR's that turned the class around, starting with the Radical.
4) Tooling for a carbon tub can cost under $3000 in materials.
5) Carbon tub prices could start at $5000.
6) DSR has grown because well engineered, turn-key cars are available, and are sellilng 50-75 cars per year. There are only 4-6 DSR's built from kits or FC chassis every year.

[jerry freeman]

Lee,

Are you willing to sell carbon tubs for $5000? If so then that would be a little more affordable for most people. But you still need everything else to go front and back. You can build a complete one piece tube frame with suspension for that (no shocks or uprights) and make a little money. Add the rest of the components and you should have a new car for $15,000-$20,000. you can sell it for $30,000-$35,000. The FSCCA car started at $30,000 and it had a car engine and transaxle. Subtract the cost of the drive train and put a motorcycle engine on it and I don't see why you can't sell new cars for $30,000. I agree that homebuilders like myself will not keep the class going, but they can convert a car for $10,000-$15,000 and race. We all know that the big manufacturers and the rich people of the world will be the ones with the winning cars. But making the rules open to carbon and titanium will run people off and eventually keep the class from growing. Besides, how much does it cost to repair a carbon tub?
That's another problem for people to think about. I thought this class was intended to reduce the cost of motors and transaxles in FC/FF. Not to build $60,000 motorcycle formula cars. If we all had that kind of money we would all own FA's or Pro Mazda's. This thread was not to knock your cars or prices because your cars are first class. I just don't think this is what this F1000 class was intended for.

[preform resources]

Lee, of course left out the engineering time,the models you would need to create tooling,the labor involved in creating the tooling,most of which are of course out of the capabilities of "home builders" not to mention carbon structural parts need to be at the least oven cured and ideally autoclave cured, so allowing carbon tubs at least at first ,would probably not be a good idea if you want to get this deal off the ground.
Dave Craddock

[Marshall Mauney]

2) Everyone on the internet says they want a brand new race car for under $30,000.
There are no such cars. You can't buy the parts for that. Chain drive diffs cost $2500.
Shocks another $2500. etc.
3) If you think a class can be formed by homebuilders, look at DSR. Very few homebuilders exist anymore. DSR almost died when it depended on homebuilders. It's the new, turn-key DSR's that turned the class around, starting with the Radical.

Lee -

With all due respect (and that's a lot) I would point out that you CAN get a brand-new F500 (or FV) for around $20K, and I believe that the Rotax engine costs more than a crate R1 mill. Your point about the diff and the shocks, though is 100% correct - this is how F500 avoided keeps the costs low.

I would also point to F500 as an example of a class that grew out of homebuilders. Granted, it's now all about the builders, Novak, Quadrini, Sidewinder, & Red Devil, but it started out homebuilt. Even so, I can buy a kit from a top builder for less than $20K; assembled, it's less than $25K. Frankly, that's where I mentally started getting interested in the F1000 concept; if I take my F500 and add a $2500 diff and $2500 in shocks, I'm basically at a $25K kit or $30K assembled car. The shocks would bolt right in to most of our existing frame designs. Some things would actually be cheaper, ex: I wouldn't need $2K in custom clutch tooling - the tranny comes with a bike motor.

You are quite right, though, that a national class won't live for very long without pro builders, and you and your competitors have done a great job of resurrecting DSR. But - if Novak and Quadrini can build cars well under $30K now, I don't see why they couldn't hit this target with a new engine package.

[S Lathrop]

Lee:

I did not pull the cost estimates for carbon tubs out of a dark hole. I got those numbers from a company in Indianapolis that does carbon work for race cars. They are a desiginated repair station for both IRL and Champ Car tubs. Additionally they have built carbon tubs. Their estimate was for a set of molds built from drawings.

A set of body molds for my Zetec FC cost way more than $3000 for the midsection which would be equilivalent to the tub section of a car. That is for three molds, built for wet lay up vacume bagging. I supplied the buck in a 90% finished condition. No way can you put $3000 molds in an oven, under vacume that is required to form a tub.

A tub the size of my car will use about 4 to 4.5 yards^2 to cover chassis one time. Say 8 layers for the outer shell only (that is less than .070 thick) we are at 36 yards^2. At $65 per yard that is $2340 for the material in the outer shell. I can lay up a 1 yard part of 4 layers and core materials in 4 hours, or 1 hour per yard. The tub has 36 yards of material. Between the baging material, the peel ply, and the bleeder ply you have the equivalent of another layer in costs. Labor may not be 36 hours but it won't be 8 hours either. After that there is cure time which probably costs the same as labor per hour.

I would estimate that the outer shell is half the cost of building a tub. You have to join the outer shell parts, install the interior bulkheads, and install the hard points.

I can build a tube frame for the material costs of a tub.

[Stan Clayton]

Two questions for Stan:
1) How many converted FCs are running? I know of two.
2) Who is "we"?

I'm in the process of assembling a crack committee to develop a proposal for F1000, including a vision for the class, a rules package, and a strategy for getting recognized by the SCCA. The ball is in my court and I need to call the members to get things rolling. I dropped the ball this week and apologize to those members.
Steve L's and Richard P's suggestions carry quite a bit of weight in my opinion, given that they know more about building cars and the business of building (and selling) cars than most people reading this. To that end, I get the feeling that the rules will look similar to FC, with some logical improvements. The two recent polls support this approach, and it might be an easier sell if the package is something that could be assimilated into an existing class (FC) in the future. I'd like the discussion to continue but rest assured that there is a group of us working in the background on making this a reality. If you feel strongly about this class (in a positive sense) drop me a line to be a part of the committee.

Mike,

With all due respect to the 2 guys who have converted FC's over the past year or so, I don't think that constitutes the beginnings of a successful new class. Moreover, your number ignores the half-dozen or so still active former FC's with motorcycle engines (albeit over 1000cc in displacement), the existing 30+ Van Diemen "Formula 1000" cars (of which at least one is already in the US), the Gloria Cars (now or very soon available in the US as an F-1000), and the several Speads FS cars.

If the object is to have a regional class of F-1000s, there already is one - FS - which until this idea was resurrected in the past month, was all they could hope for. If the objective is to define something that can grow into a new national class we (yeah, there's that word again... ) will need a source of readily available, turn-key cars. As Lee Stohr notes, while there will always be some folks who build their own, the class really needs production capacity to take off. Realistically, that capacity can only come from the constructors.

Or do you have another plan?

Who are "we"? I use the term in the first-person plural inclusive context...the builders, contructors, engine builders and the Club. All have a stake in the concept.

Stan

[Lee Stohr]

I knew I'd be stirring up the pot with my observations above !!
There is so much to discuss, anyway -
I stand by my Composite prices, we designed and built all the tooling and molds for the new Stohr WF1 last year. So I have the costs very clear in front of me. The body, floor, splitter, chassis panels are all oven cured and vacuum bagged on our DSR.
I don't think anyone is selling race cars for under $35,000 and doing it as their sole means of support. F500 is different, but even Jay Novak has a day job. FSCCA cars, and all spec classes like that are subsidised by someone, they do not make money from the sales price of the car.
I don't think anyone will subsidize F1000. Bike manufacturers have not shown any interest in DSR.

[Radicalone]

If what you want is FC with a motorcycle engine then you are going about it backwards.You should instead be formulating a plan to integrate motorcycle engines into the existing FC class throughh the use of an SIR or weight to get performance parity.To create a seperate class that is the same car with a different engine will take cars away from FC and hurt their numbers instead of strengthing FC.A lot of FC's numbers are from Central Division which is now split in half and only time will tell how that will effect the overall numbers.We already have to many classes and should be working towards fewer rather than more.The more classes to pick from equals fewer in each class.There is only x amount of people that want to race SCCA and they will choose from the current available classes.If we reduce the number of classes they will choose one of the classes that are left.I just recieved my Oregon Region news magazine that has an artical on the regional classes.We have 57 regional classes and I think they average maybe around a 120 entries per regional.It's ridiculous to keep adding classes everytime someone wants a class just for me.If it comes up for member input I will be writing in against a new motorcycle powered FC.The current formula classes all have very restricted chassis rules and are all basicaly spec engine classes.We will soon see FSCCA as a new formula class with it being a club owned project they will definately get it National status eventualy.If you wanted to work towards a new forward thinking class that allowed safer Carbon tubs any engine up to a size limit (something like DSR engine rules,1000 four stroke,900 two stroke,rotary equivalent)so that all manufacturers could play with less restrictive chassis rules I would support that because of a more open class philosophy.I think there is room for a class like that for those that don't like the spec motor and restricted chassis classes but another class almost like the five we currently have will only divide the existing pie into smaller pieces so to speak.

John

[carnut169]

Interesting thought John. I've also been thinking about this...

Problem is that they just eliminated nearly equal mc powered cars from FC this year! Think about the angry masses as we try to determine what weight/ power/ options etc would be considered equal to the Pinto. Then what about the different motors? Different years? Sounds like an impossible nightmare.

I believe F1000 is perfect for the home-builder/ mid 90's FC owner who enjoys racing and building/ engineering. You take a car that is worth very little (to slow for FC, to new for CFC) and make it into a car capable of racing & beating newer FCs. Your motor and fuel costs go way down to boot.
The spirit of the idea is a bit contagious... cheap donors- cheap drivelines- fast cars- very few rules... yeah, that sounds good to most people.

Then we start to muddy the waters. Carbon tubs. Manufacturers. Rules... People start to say why they think its a bad idea and all of a sudden there is only one guy in Georgia who ever made one... what a nut-case he was!

Lets start with a clear set of rules that allow the cars/ ideas/ contagious thing mentioned above so people can build some cars, and then see what happens.

[Marshall Mauney]

I don't think anyone is selling race cars for under $35,000 and doing it as their sole means of support. F500 is different, but even Jay Novak has a day job. FSCCA cars, and all spec classes like that are subsidised by someone, they do not make money from the sales price of the car.
I don't think anyone will subsidize F1000. Bike manufacturers have not shown any interest in DSR.

OK - good point. The F500 makers, to the best of my knowledge, are doing this basically because they like to build cars and see them race (or drive them). That said, F500 is a fairly solid class - more so than many others. It would be very, very, cool if F1000 could be made in the same sort of mold, but........ we'll see.

[S Lathrop]

I am not convinced about the cost effectiveness of carbon tubs. When we diccuss costs Lee and I have in mind a design to base our cost estimates on. May be Lee could do a concept drawing for the group so we can verify his cost estimates. I have been working with carbon tubs from the RT 40 through Swift, Lola and reciently Dellara. I know those cars and I know what they cost to buy and maintain. When we talk carbon tubs I picture the Dellara F3 chassis.

The Formula Renault cars were estimated to cost the US customer under $30,000 turn key. That was when the Euro was $0.85. Maybe Lee is right.

Underlying all this discussion, I think we are all trying to find the class that will revive the early days of FV and FF. At the peak of FF sales, I sold 30 cars in one year. Carl Haas did 175 in the same year. I will bet that all other manufacturers accounted for another 50 to 100 cars (spec racers never did that). In the late '60's FV could muster fields of 100 cars for Daytona and 90 cars for June Sprints. Many races had to devide the FF and FV classes because they were over subscribed. The year I won the FF June Sprints there were 85 cars in that race (all FF).

In those days FF's only cost $5,000. But medium income then was only $10,000. Some how we need to keep the cost of the complete car in that same relationship to average income. Turn key DSR's now exceeed 100% of medium income.

The bike engine power is a good alternative to automobile based engines. FF and FC engines cost more that the bike we get the engine from. Yes a chain drive diff. might be $2500 but a new LD200 is $5,500. The bell housing cost $1000 to $3000 depending on design.

In volume we might be able to reduce the unit cost of the a Stohr style rear drive assembly to way less than a LD200 alone.

By sticking with FF/FC rules, we preserve the value of the existing inventory of race cars, you provide an inexpensive path to get into the class and you build upon the productive capability of the current suppliers to provide new cars. You also stick with a technology that is appropriate for the participants and the race organization conducting the races.

I can see this set of rules producing two classes of cars. One at the FC performance level and another at the FF or FV level.

The over abundance of classes is somewhat meaningless. You only have so many races per weekend. The trick is to make a single class so popular that the numbers require single class races to accomodate all the entries.

Steve Lathrop

[Stan Clayton]

If what you want is FC with a motorcycle engine then you are going about it backwards.You should instead be formulating a plan to integrate motorcycle engines into the existing FC class throughh the use of an SIR or weight to get performance parity.To create a seperate class that is the same car with a different engine will take cars away from FC and hurt their numbers instead of strengthing FC.A lot of FC's numbers are from Central Division which is now split in half and only time will tell how that will effect the overall numbers.We already have to many classes and should be working towards fewer rather than more.The more classes to pick from equals fewer in each class.There is only x amount of people that want to race SCCA and they will choose from the current available classes.If we reduce the number of classes they will choose one of the classes that are left.I just recieved my Oregon Region news magazine that has an artical on the regional classes.We have 57 regional classes and I think they average maybe around a 120 entries per regional.It's ridiculous to keep adding classes everytime someone wants a class just for me.If it comes up for member input I will be writing in against a new motorcycle powered FC.The current formula classes all have very restricted chassis rules and are all basicaly spec engine classes.We will soon see FSCCA as a new formula class with it being a club owned project they will definately get it National status eventualy.If you wanted to work towards a new forward thinking class that allowed safer Carbon tubs any engine up to a size limit (something like DSR engine rules,1000 four stroke,900 two stroke,rotary equivalent)so that all manufacturers could play with less restrictive chassis rules I would support that because of a more open class philosophy.I think there is room for a class like that for those that don't like the spec motor and restricted chassis classes but another class almost like the five we currently have will only divide the existing pie into smaller pieces so to speak.

John

John,

Just five months the BoD removed motorcycle engined cars from FC, so I think it's problematical that they will suddenly reverse themselves. Then again, I'd love to be wrong...

But you do bring up an important point which may have gotten lost in the discussion, and that is that the editorial call in SportsCar magazine was to use m/c engines to reinvigorate the formula classes...not strictly speaking to create a m/c powered class. However, I seriously doubt how receptive the FC (or FM or F500) community would be to that idea. The FC community strongly resisted the introduction of the Zetec into that class, while the F500 guys polite name for m/c engines in their class is "heresy". Likewise, the FA guys are equally hostile to admitting larger bike engines into that class.

In realistic terms, I think that leaves us contemplating a new class. And speaking of new classes, it is far from obvious that the addition of new classes invariably means lower participation in other classes. Formula class' participation have been slipping for a number of years, but there is no evidence that the competitors have been stolen away by other classes in any significant numbers.

Rather, I think the argument can be made that exciting new classes mainly attract new competitors, unless there is a direct tie-in to a prior class (some of the drop in FM numbers is directly tracable to FM guys moving to Pro Mazda, for instance). When first DSR and then CSR began being reinvigorated by the introduction of new m/c powered cars, most of the new drivers were new, period. There is little evidence that they quit driving their formula-whatevers to switch to xSR.

In the case of FC, which has seen dropping participation for years, what I strongly suspect is happening (and have started studying) is that owners of 5-15 year old cars are switching to regionals only as their cars lose competitiveness. So creating a new place for them to run might actually INCREASE national participation if F1000 can reach that status. Those guys are not longer running FC, so them moving to F1000 does not represent 'stealing' cars from that class - they aren't there anyway!

Cheers! Stan

[Stan Clayton]

Steve, please send me an email at scc1909@yahoo.com...the address I have is bouncing emails back to me. Thanks! Stan

[Billy8910]

I hesitate to make any comment that might be taken as a criticism because I really appreciate all the thought that has gone into the F 1000 rules discusions. Let's just call it a request for a clarification.

Isn't the minimum weight in FC 1190? So are we saying that a '93 F 1000 can weigh 900 lbs., but a '92 must weigh 1190? If so, why? I must be missing something here.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Bill Hiatt

[Stan Clayton]

Bill, under the 2005 GCR, pre-1993 FCs can run an 1100cc m/c engine at 930 lbs. Stan

[Billy8910]

OK, thanks. I knew I was missing something.

[Lee Stohr]

Steve,
I am sure your pricing on European carbon chassis is correct. I am suggesting there may be other ways to build composite chassis at less cost.
As John said, if we just want to build FF's with bike motors, it would make the most sense to just allow bike motors in FC.
With F1000 there is an opportunity to do something new, something exciting.
Kids today go from karts to all composite FBMW, ProFM, etc. They think steel tube open wheel cars are for vintage racing.
We already have cheap open wheel classes, and lot's of open wheel classes with tons of rules. Let's think bigger than that !
Why not an open wheel class like DSR? 1000cc, no rules !
Don't say that can't work, it is working great in DSR.
I'm for trying something exciting. Let's aim high; try and add some excitement to the racing game !

[R. Pare]

I guess that a consensus needs to be made:

Are we trying to devise a fast, fun class where the buy-in cost is kept to what seems to be what the majority of racers can hack - ie - $15-25k with sweat equity, $30-35K as a roller?

Or are we just trying to make a new zoomy car where the cost up front can start at $30k with sweat equity and $100k + as an upper limit?

If you want to go the DSR route, by all means do so. Unfortunately, I think that DSR will soon find that there are fewer $60-90k+ customers than they would like to sustain a car building business for the forseeable future. I'd like to be wrong, but I doubt it highly.

One of the reasons that FC did so well with it's numbers during the '90s was the ready availability of 1 year old Pro cars at half price. That price allowed a lot of guys to get into a class where they otherwise could not have afforded the up-front cost. Now that the Pro cars are not easily converted back to Club specs, very few new cars are sold, and the car counts are going down. With any luck, the lesser expensive costs associated with the Zetec engine will bring some of those guys back.

This new class could very easily boom big time if the idea is to keep the costs in check by allowing sweat equity be part of the equation. It can just as easily bust if the costs get up as high or higher than current FCs.

Your choice.

[jerry freeman]

I agree with Mr. Pare. This was to get cost down not start another expensive formula class. There's plenty of feeder classes for the rich kids to run. I would think that most of the people who are thinking of racing this class are not kids trying to make it to F1. I still don't understand why people would want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to run for a trophy. I thought that's why they have pro races and club races.

[carnut169]

I guess that a consensus needs to be made:

Are we trying to devise a fast, fun class where the buy-in cost is kept to what seems to be what the majority of racers can hack - ie - $15-25k with sweat equity, $30-35K as a roller?.

Yes!!

Or are we just trying to make a new zoomy car where the cost up front can start at $30k with sweat equity and $100k + as an upper limit?.

No!!

One of the reasons that FC did so well with it's numbers during the '90s was the ready availability of 1 year old Pro cars at half price. That price allowed a lot of guys to get into a class where they otherwise could not have afforded the up-front cost. Now that the Pro cars are not easily converted back to Club specs, very few new cars are sold, and the car counts are going down. With any luck, the lesser expensive costs associated with the Zetec engine will bring some of those guys back.

This new class could very easily boom big time if the idea is to keep the costs in check by allowing sweat equity be part of the equation. It can just as easily bust if the costs get up as high or higher than current FCs.

Your choice.

Well said, and I agree!

[formulasuper]

Originally Posted by R. Pare
"I guess that a consensus needs to be made:

Are we trying to devise a fast, fun class where the buy-in cost is kept to what seems to be what the majority of racers can hack - ie - $15-25k with sweat equity, $30-35K as a roller?"

Why don't we run a consensus poll to find out what is wanted by the majority of racers considering this class?

[Lee Stohr]

I don't think internet polls work very well. There are ways to vote multiple times, or get friends to vote for you. And the people on these forums only represent a fraction of the participants. How many of you have ever bought a new race car ?

Also, DSR is not overpriced, they are good value for the money. Great bang for the buck, is what we always hear. People buying new cars have a good feel for what things are worth, and what we hear mostly is that DSR's are underpriced !

[Stan Clayton]

Richard's rhetorical gambit makes for good PR, but flies in the face of reality and ICP's business model...not to mention his own post.

Richard, how many new FC's has ICP sold in "kit" form in the past few years, where the owner supplied much beyond final paint and perhaps mounting an engine? Your company makes a F1000-type chassis, body, wings, diff, etc. If the F1000 idea takes off, how many of those to you plan to sell in kit form, where the builder saves cash by investing sweat equity?

Lee Stohr has offered kits to DSR buyers since 2001 at less than half the cost of completed rollers (he advertised the kits for ~$19,995 for the ~2 years they were listed on his website). In those 5 years he has sold EXACTLY 2 kits...while selling approximately 60 turn-key cars.

I think that speaks volumes about the DIY market today (ignoring FV & FF from 40 years ago). There is one out there, but it is miniscule compared to the turn-key market. Besides, finishing the car in the constructor's shop is better business - you get to charge shop rate for building the car, the car is arguably better built, and the buyer is able to get the car on track much quicker - it's a win-win for all concerned.

And the reality is that this is the current de facto status for all significant race car sales.

Point two...let's say the class rules stick strictly to the FC model. It is inevitable that a well funded very good driver will call VD and buy a brand new chassis to mount a m/c engine in. That driver will then wipe the floor with all the 5-15 year old FC conversions, not to mention the Citations (yes, I watched the Runoffs broadcast in which it was discussed that Tom's Citation was a dated design). Will folks then rush to buy more Citations or convert more older FCs? No. They will whine that so-and-so has more money than they do.

Point three...and here's a reality check. Guess what? A new Van Diemen FC chassis costs as much by the time the buyer adds bodywork, anti-intrusion panels, and bottom and rear bulkheads as a BRAND NEW Pro Mazda carbon tub. That's right. Call them and ask. (My source: Jon Baytos of VD sales.)

My point? This is a competitive environment, and the only way we are going to create a "low cost, level playing field" in F1000 is to appoint a single-source supplier of chassis and engines. That was tried with the FSCCA with less than stellar results - and they offered turn-key cars at $25k for the first year. Is that REALLY the way you want to go?

I don't think so. So let's create a forward looking class that can accommodate a wide variety of approaches to the F1000 challenge and let the market sort it out.

Stan Clayton

[Lee Stohr]

Going from FF to DSR, I discovered something that was not obvious.
Faster cars with few rules actually make it easier for the driver with talent and less money to do well. And it allows a better funded driver to buy some advantages in horsepower or whatever, that he can't get in other classes.
But cars that go as fast as DSR's and FA's are hard to drive at the limit. I don't mean they are harder to drive than a FF, but they are much more physical, and so fast that drivers just don't push the limit every lap. Fast corners are just flat frightening fast !
So talent can beat money more so than in FF or FC.
Fewer rules do drive up cost a little, but what class of racing is cheap at the Runoffs level?
Perversely, fewer rules give everyone an opportunity, not just the better funded teams.

[R. Pare]

Richard's rhetorical gambit makes for good PR, but flies in the face of reality and ICP's business model...not to mention his own post.

How so? Try elaborating rather than just making accusations. We are here to discuss ideas, aren't we?

Richard, how many new FC's has ICP sold in "kit" form in the past few years, where the owner supplied much beyond final paint and perhaps mounting an engine? Your company makes a F1000-type chassis, body, wings, diff, etc. If the F1000 idea takes off, how many of those to you plan to sell in kit form, where the builder saves cash by investing sweat equit

We have sold ZERO cars for over 11 years - since 1994 to be exact, when we sold the car building business. Steve HAS built 1 new car that is supposedly sold, But as far as I am concerned, building cars for this market (the current SCCA formula car market) is a great way to lose money. Been there, done that too damned long....... Building specialty parts in decent quantities is another matter all together, and is the only thing that has paid the bills here for a long time. Now, if I win 50 mil in the lottery, I might reconsider!

Most manufacturers will not sell cars as kits for the very reason that too many of them get assembled incorrectly, no matter how good the instruction book is - been there, done that. What I was referring to, and what you ignored or overlooked, was the guys that can buy a used car and convert it, exactly what is happening at the moment. Granted, that will NOT be the majority of the cars produced if the class matures, but it will certainly be how the first 20-50 are done. Making sure that that can happen is the fastest way to get the class off the ground.

Once the class gets off the ground, as I hope it will, there will obviously be manufacturers (but not me) ready and willing to build turn key cars, and there will be the stated price difference and performance difference between those cars and a converted older car - that's a given. But do you want to chase away the "homebuilders" from the very start when they are they guys you have no choice but to rely on to get this class going?

As to Stohr's success and his kit sales : There seems to be a big difference in the mind set and purchasing power of the typical Stohr (or Maloy, or Speads, etc) DSR buyer compared to the typical FF/FC type guy ( and the majority of guys on this forum), which leads me to believe that while a few turnkey $60-90k cars can be sold, you won't get anywhere as many as you would if the cost is closer to $30-35k.

If someone can afford the $55-60k price for a Stohr kit ( most likely a busy and successful guy making $150-200k a year), is he going to balk at another $4-5k for assembly? Seems not, as that is only a 7-9% cost increase. To the guy just out of college that has the skills or connections for using sweat equity, the $10-15k that he can save buy doing his own FC-to-F1000 conversion, might make the difference for him.

[Stan ClaytonQUOTE]Point three...and here's a reality check. Guess what? A new Van Diemen FC chassis costs as much by the time the buyer adds bodywork, anti-intrusion panels, and bottom and rear bulkheads as a BRAND NEW Pro Mazda carbon tub. That's right. Call them and ask. [/QUOTE]

And how much does the BMW cost once you add the bodywork, sidepods, etc, that is not part of that bare tub cost? How much of that is Baytos's markup over the VD price?

How much does it cost to fix properly and safely a crashed carbon tub compared to a tube chassis? How many qualified carbon tub repair shops are there in this country? How many qualified tube chassis fabricators? How long does it take?

Yes, having a carbon tub cars sounds all nice and zoomy, but to think that they will not add a ton to the cost both up front and over time is ludicrous. Try checking out the current price and availability of carbon and kevlar today compared to when the BMWs were built.

If everyone wants to go that route, fine. It's their choice and money. I'm only making sure that you are aware of, and discuss, all the possibilities up front.

Which is what you started this forum thread for, I think.

The diff will never be sold as a kit - I'm surprised that you would ask such a question! Does Elite or Quicksilver sell their engines unassembled and undynoed? I prefer to make sure my stuff works correctly when it leaves here.

[jerry freeman]

Mr. Stohr,

I'm no world champion driver or national champion car builder, and I don't mean any disrespect when I say this BUT in 34 years of living and being around racing of all kinds, I've never heard anybody say a race car was underpriced. Your right about the internet polls so I'll give my opinion out loud. This class is already dead. It started out as a reasonasbly priced way to get into formula cars with cheaper motors and sequential gear boxes and it's turned into a $60,000-$90,000 way to go broke in a year. No thanks. Sean O., I hope to get to race with you at Road Atlanta in Feb. while everyone else is trying to convince the world that carbon fiber and titanium are cheaper than Chrome moly and aluminum.

[carnut169]

Its really not dead. I've got one, Mike B is building one, Scott W is almost done, Rob Lav has something close, and then there is yours. Plenty of others being constructed in the minds (and garages) of older FC owners I'm sure. We are doing more than just talking about it... and even the cars made by Gloria, Van Diemen, Speads, etc are not built of unobtainium- they are all tube-frame stock 1000cc rides that are reasonably priced.

Lets just get out there and have fun in these cars. Hopefully we will have some results to talk about as the season progresses and we can always go from there.

[S Lathrop]

A lot of the argument about rules is more about the market demographics of the potential driver/owners.

Stan and Lee are arguing for a car that is competitive and priced around the Formula Mazada (new pro car), formula BMW and pro Zetec F2000. Is SCCA club racing attractive enough to draw those customers in sufficient quanities? All of those cars cost more that 100% of medium income. How many SCCA club racers can afford to spend $100,000 per year racing? How many can afford $50,000? My advice to customers is to figure how much money you can spend on racing and buy a car that is equal to half that amount. That implies customer incomes in the low to moderate six figures. I figure that a young, unmarried, die hard racer can afford to spend 50% of his income racing. I don't have an answer to this question but we better figure it out before we proceed any further.

The car that Stan and Lee are advocating has a lot of competition for customers. Why not pick one of those classes and say here is an SCCA class and come race with us. That would be more cost effective than trying to compete with the similar package.

There are a lot of reasons that Enterprises has not been able to introduce a follow on to the spec. racer. Not the least of which is that "spec" classes do spec the cost of entry and there are not enough customers with the income and desire to make the classes viable.

I look at my customer base over the last 30 years and I do not see how the vast majority could start today in what we have to offer in racing classes. F500 and FV are very specialized and have limited appeal. FF and FC at the turn key level are way too expensive. I see the F1000 as a way of reducing the cost of FF or FC by 20% to 30% both to purchace and to maintain.

I hear more voices on this forum arguing for the low end class. The real genius will be in devising a set of rules that balance cost and performance, and bring in a car that will attract reasonable numbers.

Steve Lsthrop

[Brands]

Just a quick one to add to the numbers! I've just taken delivery of a GSXR 1000 motor and will be building a car this year. For what it's worth I hope F1000 will be a tube frame series (or alluminium tubs). It works so well back in the UK, - it's as cost effective as it can be. There really is no need for carbon tubs at this level - in my opinion and I say this as someone who has 10 years experience in various carbon tub series (F1, Le Mans etc, etc). I'm spurred on by the Van Diemen conversion by Carnut. His car is just right and represents exactly my point of view. One last point, and a selfish one but free underbody is a must : )

[Stan Clayton]

How so? Try elaborating rather than just making accusations.

Okay, you wrote:

Are we trying to devise a fast, fun class where the buy-in cost is kept to what seems to be what the majority of racers can hack - ie - $15-25k with sweat equity, $30-35K as a roller?

Or are we just trying to make a new zoomy car where the cost up front can start at $30k with sweat equity and $100k + as an upper limit?

That's a rhetorical gambit, Richard. At one end of the scale you've placed the good guys in white hats who spend a mere $15-$25k, while at the other end are the evil profiteers and class crashers who make it impossible to be competitive for less than $100k (or more) and who exclude all the good guys. I'm waving the BS flag...

So what is your solution? You yourself said you haven't sold a car in 11 years. Are we going to build a successful class based on home-builts that are themselves already 10-20 years old? Don't kid yourself. Two have been completed in the past year and a half. From the actual data, the Club knows that it takes about 75 cars actively campaigned in Nationals to maintain National status for a class. At the present rate of car completion it will take another 25-30 years to get there, so that plan isn't going to work, Richard, and it never could.

Furthermore, you couldn't make a living selling cars for $35,000 11 years ago, so why do you suddenly think other folks should have to now?

That's what I mean about rhetorical gambits. They sound great and they make good PR, but they don't stand up under scrutiny.

The only way to build a class in a reasonable time is to involve constructors. Lee knows what it will cost him to build a car. Time will tell if he has willing buyers. Same for Matt Conrad at Phoenix Race Cars, the guys Van Diemen, etc. In the mean time, guys are free to build and race their own cars, either converted or scratch built - and I'm betting that some of those hungry young engineering grads can turn out a pretty respectable car!

FWIW, I spoke with Brian Utt (owner of Carbir Racing Cars) from Shanghai, China last week. He is excited about the F1000 and projects that he can produce a turn-key car for the mid-30's. In the face of that folks may have to reevaluate the $100k model...

Off to the Convention...

Stan Clayton