F1000 Rules Proposal

[sidney]

One way you could keep costs of the engines down would be to make the motors "claimers" You'd have to make an adequate comparison sheet to offset year of manufacture and make of motor, but you can have the other guys motor for $XX if you give him the one in your car. This assumes that the older the motor, the more miles it has been run. The amount of time and money invested in development of the motor becomes less of an issue, because nobody wants to give up something they've poured big bucks into in order to squeeze out a few more hp to gain a power advantage. If the avaiablity of crated engine supply/choices is sufficient, this would also help to curb costs and even the hp. I'm not saying this is the way to go, but just another way that some forms of motor racing have implemented to curb engine expense/costs. I always thought this would be a great way to curb engine costs in FV.

As for weight, I like the F1k=1000cc=1000 lbs. If the older FC cars that were homologated as motorcycle cars want to run at the old wieght, great, but if you convert a DB6 or something else, you gotta get to 1000lbs.

[jonbaytos]

[size=2] Dennis,39,500.00 complete,as described earlier.jb[/size]

[Dennis McCarthy]

If that would be the best $$ figure, then it's building anything new seems pretty much a moot point because the cars at that price point are already there. Go buy an FSCCA or a Zetec for a bit more. If you really need to spend more then go buy a Pro Mazda.

As Richard so eloquently stated it's all about "Perception of Value".

People stood in line for the FSCCA at 26K.
Everyone thought it was a great value.
If Erik could sell them now at that price with the majority of the problems sorted out they'd probably still be selling like hotcakes.



I think that once you hit that magic 30K ceiling, you may as well forget it, you no longer have a car for the masses but for a smaller select group. While you will sell some cars, you won't have to hire any extra help to answer the phones. Unfortunately, there is only so much disposable income to go around and at 40K the toys just aren't as appealing to as many.

[jonbaytos]

[size=2]Dennis with all due respect I would disagree. But I guesswe will see.Zetec is 53,000.00 and a lot of maintenance in comparison.Ent can't sell at 26,000.00 375 Mazda[old] at 39,000.00? 100 at av70.000.00 410 f2000's at avg of 46,000.00 Have good weekend JB[/size]

[Matt Conrad]

I just want to clarify my point on the dollars....I know there are people out there that can buy whatever they want...and there are more of them than you think. My point is that we have to realistically look at where F1000 would fit in the whole scope of things.

With the current situation in the Formula Car ranks, I do not think we need another class to compete with what's already out there. Yes, you will find people willing to spend $75,000 on a purpose-built F1000, but how many, and why would you when you can buy a carbon-tubbed Pro Mazda for almost the same money? And it's not just Formula Cars we're competing with....there's a bunch of options for race cars when you get into that kind of money.

I realistically think the market for this class is at or below $45k. And the "sweet spot" is in the $20-25K conversion with the guy or gal with a 1990-1998 Van Diemen that's tired of trying to keep up with the new chassis and spending $10,000 on Pinto motors.

Can a manufacturer make any money selling an F1000 at $45K? I'm thinking it's do-able.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.

[S Lathrop]

When we discuss car prices there are two prices we should focus on: (1)the price of new cars and (2)the price of entry level cars. Very few FF and FC participants started with new cars. I can say for certain that most of all my customers could never afford to enter a class by purchasing all new equipment in a single year.

The problem with spec classes is that the price of entry is fixed at nearly new car prices. The only spec class that had a low entry price was Spec Racer because SCCA was willing to loose $2,500,000 subsidizing the class. Spec classes are not the solution to low cost racing. You car get into FF or FC with good servicable equipment for under $10,000. I will argue that a 1984 Swift FF was cheeper to race for 20 years that a 1984 Spec Racer.

One thing that will help keep costs down is standardizing certain parts. The Daytona Proto Types, while certainly not cheep, do share certain components by having each manufacturer supply certain components to all manufacturers. When FF was reasonably priced, a large percentage of parts were common to all cars. Formula Vee is the ultimate example of the common box of parts racing class.

By adopting the FC rules, we keep the cost of playing (racing F1000) low because there are so many suitable cars that can be converted. As new cars come onto the market, the existing cars become available at relative low price. I expect that most new participants will buy converted cars. New cars will go to those existing competitors who want to be more competitive.

FC is a mature class. By that I mean, that within reason, you can not intorduce a new car that obsoletes the all existing cars. By using the FC rules, you hope to extend that stability to the F1000. Ideally you would want a converted FC to be as competitive in F1000 as the same car would be in FC. Maybe the rule writers can do better than that. However you want a clean set of rules. That is the same rules apply to each and every car.

In FC today the designs of the cars are so similar that with a little tweeking most parts are interchangable between the various cars. The Swift, and Citations use VW based spindles and bearings. Brake rotors and hats are interchangable and produced by several manufacturers. The Van Dienen parts are so similar that we all could standardize with little trouble. We already have an excellent after market in components. We at Citation have build parts for Piper, Carbir, and Van Diemen. We might codify that tendency in the rules for new cars.

A 1000 lbs. min weight would be easy for every one to make. I think you want to think in terms of 200 lbs driver weight.

We might consider making the maximum body width rule (95cm -- 37.4 ins.) a minimum and make the max 100 (39.4) or 110 (43.3). 100cm would not alter designs a lot but might improve side protection.

Stick with 2 piston calipers and you open the market to some low cost stuff but you do not put existing equipment at a significant disadvantage. AP makes an aluminum FF caliper. Wilwood has two piston calipers at very competitive prices.

Just some more thoughts.

[preform resources]

right on ,Matt!
Dave Craddock

[Stan Clayton]

The problem with spec classes is that the price of entry is fixed at nearly new car prices. The only spec class that had a low entry price was Spec Racer because SCCA was willing to loose $2,500,000 subsidizing the class.

Two-and-a-half MILLION dollars, Steve? That's a pretty big claim. You have proof of it?

Spec classes are not the solution to low cost racing.

That may be your opinion, Steve, but there are at least 948 persons in SCCA who disagree with you, because that's how many SFRs and F/SR-SCCAs have been sold. And oh-by-the-way, Enterprises tuned a profit again last year and is paying down its debt to SCCA...with no subsidies.

You car get into FF or FC with good servicable equipment for under $10,000. I will argue that a 1984 Swift FF was cheeper to race for 20 years that a 1984 Spec Racer.

One thing that will help keep costs down is standardizing certain parts. The Daytona Proto Types, while certainly not cheep, do share certain components by having each manufacturer supply certain components to all manufacturers. When FF was reasonably priced, a large percentage of parts were common to all cars. Formula Vee is the ultimate example of the common box of parts racing class.

Sure, there are enough volume manufacturers to achieve some real economies of production scale, but if the rules mandated such-and-such uprights, for instance, that blows the DIYer out of the water.

A 1000 lbs. min weight would be easy for every one to make. I think you want to think in terms of 200 lbs driver weight.

If the interested parties want a 1000 lbs weight, that's fine, but the Club has standardised on a 180 lbs driver.

We might consider making the maximum body width rule (95cm -- 37.4 ins.) a minimum and make the max 100 (39.4) or 110 (43.3). 100cm would not alter designs a lot but might improve side protection.

Since there are so few F-1000s built yet, why insist on a width that up-front eliminates at least two constructors, and a goodly percentage of the potential conversions out there?

Stick with 2 piston calipers and you open the market to some low cost stuff but you do not put existing equipment at a significant disadvantage. AP makes an aluminum FF caliper. Wilwood has two piston calipers at very competitive prices.

Wait a minute, Steve. If two-piston calipers can achieve threshold breaking in an 1190 lbs FC, 4-piston calipers cannot slow the same car any quicker at 1000 lbs. You can't have it both ways. Besides, aren't you the one who complained about me advocating $800-$1600 APs? Well, here's a 4-pot Wilwood for $105...delivered. (Link)

[S Lathrop]

Stan;

A careful reading of the annual reports of SCCA after they took over production from Jeep Renault will reveal the numbers. There is no telling what was spent before that. I can make a strong case for that number.

I have some experience in reading financial reports as an employee of a major New York bank.

In any event there have been more FV or FF purchased than SR. SR has never had a 100 plus car grid. FV has. FF has had 80 and 90 car grids on many occasions over many years. And none of these classes required SCCA money to succeed.

This discussion is not productive.

[S Lathrop]

Are we not trying to keep the performance of the F1000 similar to the FC conversions?

If we reduce the weight of the car by 200lbs then the same brake package should be good enough. Why make any change.

Wilwood is not the best brake package. What happens if PF at $2400 a set is what it takes to win?

[S Lathrop]

I have no problem with leaving things as they are. I suggested the increase because it had b een proposed earlier for safety and engine cooling. The numbers I suggested were those I felt would produce the benefits without upsetting the current balance.

[Stan Clayton]

A careful reading of the annual reports of SCCA after they took over production from Jeep Renault will reveal the numbers. There is no telling what was spent before that. I can make a strong case for that number.

Please do, Steve. I certainly agree that it is fair to say that the Club underwrote the purchases of early SFRs. However, $2.5-million is a very specific and very large number. If it is true, fine. OTOH, if it is speculation I think you owe it to us to admit it.

This discussion is not productive.

I agree, though perhaps for different reasons to yours...

[Stan Clayton]

Are we not trying to keep the performance of the F1000 similar to the FC conversions?

No. What I see emerging is a 1000-lbs car with 180-ish horsepower versus an FC at 1200 lbs and 140 hp.

If we reduce the weight of the car by 200lbs then the same brake package should be good enough. Why make any change.

Wilwood is not the best brake package. What happens if PF at $2400 a set is what it takes to win?

If it takes a $2400 set of PFs, Steve, where does that leave the guys running 20 pounds of cast iron twin-pots?

More to the point, a Stohr DSR has won each of the past 4 DSR Runoffs titles with...you guessed it, cheap Wilwood 4-pots.

Furthermore, non-FC designs from Phoenix, West, Stohr and others are designed for inexpensive 4-pot calipers. If the 4-pots have no advantage (see your comment above about twin-pots being good enough), then why try to keep them out?

Stan

[R. Pare]

Please do, Steve. I certainly agree that it is fair to say that the Club underwrote the purchases of early SFRs. However, $2.5-million is a very specific and very large number. If it is true, fine. OTOH, if it is speculation I think you owe it to us to admit it.

Uh, Stan, that's the number that the Club itself published as a loss during it's first years when all it did was Spec Racers. In fact, I believe that the number was actually a bit higher than that. You might want to refresh your memory about Enterprises history a bit.

[R. Pare]

Stan: You logic is a bit suspect:

Sure, there are enough volume manufacturers to achieve some real economies of production scale, but if the rules mandated such-and-such uprights, for instance, that blows the DIYer out of the water.

Not in the least - they just buy the approved uprights exactly the same way the manufacturers have to.

Weren't you the one not concerned with the DYI-ers a bit earlier?

If the interested parties want a 1000 lbs weight, that's fine, but the Club has standardised on a 180 lbs driver.

Since when?

Since there are so few F-1000s built yet, why insist on a width that up-front eliminates at least two constructors, and a goodly percentage of the potential conversions out there?

Eliminates who?? How??? FC max width is 37.4 inches now, so making that the minimum eliminates nobody. If this is to supposedly be a "new" class, we should be insisting that cars that are below the current legal maximum be brought up to that width as a minimum for safety reasons. Some cars will have to add bodywork, big deal!

Wait a minute, Steve. If two-piston calipers can achieve threshold breaking in an 1190 lbs FC, 4-piston calipers cannot slow the same car any quicker at 1000 lbs. You can't have it both ways. Besides, aren't you the one who complained about me advocating $800-$1600 APs?

Your knowledge about brake systems is a bit suspect if you believe that there is no potential for a braking performance increase if going from a 2-pot to a 4-pot.

If it takes a $2400 set of PFs, Steve, where does that leave the guys running 20 pounds of cast iron twin-pots?

Which is exactly why we believe that the rules should stay with 2-pot at this time, unless we can figure out a way to keep out the ultra-expensive calipers.

[Stan Clayton]

Not in the least - they [the DIY-ers] just buy the approved uprights exactly the same way the manufacturers have to.

Way to look out for the little guy, Richard! I've got bad news, Sean, your car isn't legal until you send Richard 2 or 3 grand to mount his spec corners. Sorry, this isn't going to fly, Richard.

Weren't you the one not concerned with the DYI-ers a bit earlier?

Wrong again...I am the one who said the DIY-ers don't have the numbers to build a class on their own.

Eliminates who?? How??? FC max width is 37.4 inches now, so making that the minimum eliminates nobody. If this is to supposedly be a "new" class, we should be insisting that cars that are below the current legal maximum be brought up to that width as a minimum for safety reasons. Some cars will have to add bodywork, big deal!

Steve wrote, "We might consider making the maximum body width rule (95cm -- 37.4 ins.) a minimum and make the max 100 (39.4) or 110 (43.3)." The Van Diemen F-1000 would be eliminated by that max (it's ~125cm). So too would be the Gloria (even wider...I forget how much).

Your knowledge about brake systems is a bit suspect if you believe that there is no potential for a braking performance increase if going from a 2-pot to a 4-pot.

Now that you mention it, the answer is "it depends". And all that FUD about $2400 isn't going to fly, either. If dirt cheap calipers work fine on DSRs, virtually identical to the F-1000 concept, then they will work just as well for F-1000s.

Which is exactly why we believe that the rules should stay with 2-pot at this time, unless we can figure out a way to keep out the ultra-expensive calipers.

You and Steve keep reaching for the 'nuclear option', Richard. First it was the quarter million dollar buy-in to build a composite tub mold. Sure, if you hire an Indy car tub maker to do it for you...why didn't you just ask Ferarri's F-1 shop and get an even higher bid? Get a grip. New Mazda tubs retail for 11-grand, about the same as a new VD tube frame chassis once one adds sides, bottom and body to make them more or less equally 'complete'. And now you guys suddenly come up with this cockamamie insinuation that it'll take "ultra-expensive calipers" to win in F-1000 if we dare to let 4-pot calipers in. What rubbish.

One last point. This isn't 1969 and we don't have to settle for heavy Brit econobox brakes because that's all we can get at an affordable price. Furthermore, if DSR is any judge of requirements, F-1000s will NEED a front brake upgrade if they are going to last for a full race at the power and speed these cars are capable of.

[Stan Clayton]

Uh, Stan, that's the number that the Club itself published as a loss during it's first years when all it did was Spec Racers. In fact, I believe that the number was actually a bit higher than that. You might want to refresh your memory about Enterprises history a bit.

Like I told Steve, if you have the proof, lay it out there.

[S Lathrop]

I wish I had not responded to your comment about spec classes.

The numbers I am quoting are SCCA's investement in Enterprises, plus loans to Enterprises. I believe that those balance sheet "assets" have been adjusted down over time. I got the numbers from reading the annual statement published in Sports Car mag.
I have equated all money "invested" in Enterprises as being a subsidy of SR. That was prior to the introduction of Shelby Can-Am. Bottom line, it was SCCA money directed to a single SCCA class.

What does this have to do with F1000?

[S Lathrop]

I thought we were advocating restricting the engines to about 150 hp. If so my proposal about brakes still stands.

If we are talking about 180 hp engines, then the FC rules are inadiquate. European F3 rules are more appropriate.

[carnut169]

Can someone please tell me what inexpensive Wilwood brakes will work on my VD uprights? I'd love to shed some unsprung weight but don't want the hassle of rotating calipers ala ICP (are you guys going to fix that or what?) to bleed the brakes.

While we are on brakes... just allow whatever brakes people want to run. Is there really that big of a performance advantage between 2 pot Wilwoods and 4 pot whateverwoods? If the min was 1000lbs you don't have to get the latest/ greatest $2400lb set- as of now my LD20s seem to stop the car pretty damm good! IF however the 2 pot Wilwoods would work (at $105 each) can't I get close to that for my LD20s? In my eyes, that's no cost.

FWIW- I don't like the min pod width rule as proposed by whoever. If you can make a early VD work (run cool enough) with the skinny pods who are we to say it needs to be wider? Does not make it any safer at 38"... just more expensive. Leave this type of rule out.


Remember this should be about cost (low) vs. performance (high).

[carnut169]

Steve-


The amount of restricted HP has not been decided. I think 175hp is about right (and aprox what a stock 05-06 GSXR 1000 will make). The intent is not to limit stock motors but to discourage spending $$ on improving the stock internals.

Sidney's claimer idea was also discussed...

[S Lathrop]

My suggestion about standardizing certain parts was not to advocate a "spec" part but to keep the designs similar and certain parts interchangable. Most US built cars already do that.

My idea was to place some limits on design. This would keep new cars similar to existing cars and possibly achieve some economies among several manufactures. As an example, Reynards use rear wheel beariings that were relative inexpensive in Europe but were prohibitively expensive in the US because of import restrictions. This was the difference between a $40 VW Rabit wheel bearing and a $250 Lancia bearing. All the US manufacturers us some form of VW hub bearings or standard bearing sizes.

Because all FV use the same rear brake drum, we spent the money to buy the tooling to make new rear brake drums that were strong enough to stand up to the latest tires being used. We can make axle and have done so, but it is cheeper for me to buy the axles from Fast Forward and design around the Piper axle length.

As an aside, the 16 national championships that my cars have won have been against many other talanted and well funded manufacturers, including Swift, Lola, Chrossle, VD, Reynard, ADF, Piper, among others. I say that to encourage us to think about what made FV, FF and FC formula classes the successes they have been. I don't think the DSR/CSR class is the model for F1000.

[Stan Clayton]

I wish I had not responded to your comment about spec classes.

The numbers I am quoting are SCCA's investement in Enterprises, plus loans to Enterprises. I believe that those balance sheet "assets" have been adjusted down over time. I got the numbers from reading the annual statement published in Sports Car mag.
I have equated all money "invested" in Enterprises as being a subsidy of SR. That was prior to the introduction of Shelby Can-Am. Bottom line, it was SCCA money directed to a single SCCA class.

What does this have to do with F1000?

Steve, if you will take a look at post number 126 in this thread, you will see that it is you who brought up the spec class issue, along with a claim that SCCA has subsidized SRF to the tune of $2,500,000. I say that if you have proof, please lay it out for all to see.

OTOH, this appears to me to be part of a campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) to undermine rational discussion of an F-1000 proposal, and to what end?

First it was the claim of $2.5-million in SCCA subsidies for SRF, with a vague reference to "Spec classes are not the solution to low cost racing." Like you say, what does this have to do with F-1000? No one is seriouly suggesting that it might emerge as a spec class.

Next it was a claim that just to build a mold is a quarter million dollars. Good grief!

Then you implied that approving 4-pot calipers will lead to "ultra-expensive" $2400 APs. Nonsense. Virtually identically powered DSRs reliably achieve threashold braking with hundred dollar cheapie Wilwoods. Yes, there have been quality issues, but arguably no more than for your company's "light weight" iron calipers. If they wish, F-1000 convertors can sell their iron calipers to FC guys and upgrade to 4-pots that bolt right onto the 3.5" pattern common to the vast majority of FC uprights...probably at no net cost, since the iron calipers are so expensive.

And where did you get this 150-hp idea? Flip back through the pages, Steve. There has been extensive discussion of the power potential of modern liter bike engines, along with SIRs and other options to manage hp to a desired level, but there is no concensus that 150 hp is that number. If the Club decides to reintegrate m/c engines back into FC then this whole topic has no reason to exist, but we aren't talking about that. We are talking about a new class...Formula 1000.

Lastly you write "If we are talking about 180 hp engines, then the FC rules are inadiquate. European F3 rules are more appropriate." Are you talking about the cars in general or the brake in particular? In either case, once again the path is already beaten by DSR. The past four Runoffs winners in DSR have weighed between 1010 and 1060 pounds in tube frame cars that made 180-ish hp. They stopped just fine with cheapie Wilwoods...4-pots at the front and IIRC 2-pots at the rear.

Stan

[S Lathrop]

If 175hp is what we are talking about, then monocoque is the only way to go. With that decision, plastic is the only way to build.

Stan; Remember that new Formula Mazadas only have to compete with themselves and so does Swift. If this is an open class then the level of design and execution will get to the level of F3 and should. Also don't confuse old technology and old designs with new designs using old technology. The internal combustion engine is truly old technology.

I have built cars for highly competitive classes at horse powers from 60 hp to 200hp. I had an interesting experiment when we built the Z14 monocoque to replace the Z11 tube chassis. The cars were nearly identical except the chassis. The difference was dramatic when driving the two cars. Today my tube frame cars exceed the strength of that Z14 monocoque but I still think the performance advantage today would favor the monocoque (composite) as dramatically. Then the hp was in the 175 to 190 range for water cooled SFV.

My experience with DSR is that corner speeds were not equal to FF in 2004 but the lap times smoked FCs. A developed FC with DSR hp and F1000 weight will corner with FA and get down the streights even better.

Finally the cost of molds to do an F3 tub are way more expensive than what Lee estimates. $11,000 tubs is still more expensive than $5000 tube frames. I based that cost on what I was quoted to produce my frames.

[Stan Clayton]

If 175hp is what we are talking about, then monocoque is the only way to go.

That's your opionion, Steve, but others may differ. And odd as it may seem, I think we are coming closer to agreement. From the outset I have supported the inclusion of composite tubs in F-1000 from a safety perspective. Others point out that FC and DSR have good safety records, and I have to concede that they do, but I don't see that as a reason to exclude demonstrably safer composite technology.

Stan; Remember that new Formula Mazadas only have to compete with themselves and so does Swift. If this is an open class then the level of design and execution will get to the level of F3 and should.

This is also club racing, Steve, where people will weigh the cost/benefit of choices, rather than having to shell out for a spec car. For instance, composite tubs have been legal for years in DSR, yet no one has brought one out. The same thing may happen in F-1000 even if composite tubs are legal.

I have built cars for highly competitive classes at horse powers from 60 hp to 200hp. I had an interesting experiment when we built the Z14 monocoque to replace the Z11 tube chassis. The cars were nearly identical except the chassis. The difference was dramatic when driving the two cars. Today my tube frame cars exceed the strength of that Z14 monocoque but I still think the performance advantage today would favor the monocoque (composite) as dramatically. Then the hp was in the 175 to 190 range for water cooled SFV.

This is why I suggested a two-tier weight for F-1000. If a car complies with FC specs (except to permit alloy calipers), let them run at the old 930 lbs limit. If they exceed FC specs, then they have to weigh 1000 lbs. This should take care of any stiffness advantage of composite tubs and/or wider sidepods. As an aside, I think it's also fair to say that tube designs have evolved, too, and are stiffer than they were 25+ years ago.

My experience with DSR is that corner speeds were not equal to FF in 2004 but the lap times smoked FCs. A developed FC with DSR hp and F1000 weight will corner with FA and get down the streights even better.

The heavily instrumented Stohr DSR that Rennie ran last year was nearly as quick in the corners at Buttonwillow as Bob Stallings' FA and was faster on the straights - with lap times within a tenth or so of each other. Only the rear control arm failure prevented a DSR taking overall victory from the FA.

Finally the cost of molds to do an F3 tub are way more expensive than what Lee estimates. $11,000 tubs is still more expensive than $5000 tube frames. I based that cost on what I was quoted to produce my frames.

An actual F3 tub? Sure, but Lee says he can build a rules-complaint tub for very little more than your tube frame, so why not let him try?

Stan

[R. Pare]

That's your opionion, Steve, but others may differ. And odd as it may seem, I think we are coming closer to agreement. From the outset I have supported the inclusion of composite tubs in F-1000 from a safety perspective. Others point out that FC and DSR have good safety records, and I have to concede that they do, but I don't see that as a reason to exclude demonstrably safer composite technology.

Stan: as before, the question comes down to what price range are we trying to get these cars into? If you are trying to get the costs complete in the $35000or so range, with cars produced in reletively small volumes you definetely won't do it with a composit tub, no matter what others might be feeding you.

The cost of producing a proper carbon/kevlar/alu honeycomb tub that is designed to withstand years of abuse is astronomical compared to what we seem to want this class to be.Costs of repairs are a ton higher, as we've pointed out before also. To me, anyway, allowing composit tubs is not in the spirit of what we seem to wanting to achieve - a reletively low priced club car.

True, a properly done tub can be a lot safer than a tube frame, which is why we should look at upgrading the mandatory safety structures if a tube frame is utilized. F3 mandated that the sidepods be a certain width and minimum height with some specified crush capabilities to help prevent injuries that they were seeing, and we should seriously look at this sort of thing for us.

I disagree that these cars at 170-180 hp and 1000 lbs will be all that much faster in a straight line, especially if the 8" and 10" tires are used - the increase in hp will be slightly off set by the extra drag of the tires. If someone feels like doing it, it is not hard at all to calculate approximately what the change would be. Obviously, the cars should be quicker accellerating, corner faster, and stop faster, so the energy there will be correspondingly greater, but should be well within what a properly designed and reinforced tube frame can handle.

This is also club racing, Steve, where people will weigh the cost/benefit of choices, rather than having to shell out for a spec car. For instance, composite tubs have been legal for years in DSR, yet no one has brought one out. The same thing may happen in F-1000 even if composite tubs are legal.

Yes, and when someone decides to ante up the investment it will take for a properly done one and cleans the floor with the tube framed cars, then the financial goal posts will move considerably. With an increase in torsional stiffness on the order of 4X over the best of the current tube frames, even with everything else being exactly the same, the tub car will be faster.

The heavily instrumented Stohr DSR that Rennie ran last year was nearly as quick in the corners at Buttonwillow as Bob Stallings' FA and was faster on the straights - with lap times within a tenth or so of each other. Only the rear control arm failure prevented a DSR taking overall victory from the FA.

If you will note, Steve was talking about the pre-tunnel '04 car, which could barely manage 1.6 g's, compared to 2.0 for a top FF, and 2.5 for an FC. Also, Buttonwillow is not known as a high-load track, so comparisons from either Laguna or Sears would be more appropriate.Please keep the apples and oranges separated in you arguements!

An actual F3 tub? Sure, but Lee says he can build a rules-complaint tub for very little more than your tube frame, so why not let him try?
Stan

Whose rules? If Lee can produce and sell a properly executed carbon/kevlar/honeycomb tub forvery little over $5000 and without spending a quarter mil or so up front, the world would love to see how he does it!

[R. Pare]

Steve, if you will take a look at post number 126 in this thread, you will see that it is you who brought up the spec class issue, along with a claim that SCCA has subsidized SRF to the tune of $2,500,000. I say that if you have proof, please lay it out for all to see.

Stan, the Club has already admitted the losses. Why are you the only one who seems to not believe it?

appears to me to be part of a campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) to undermine rational discussion of an F-1000 proposal, and to what end?

Stan, that's a bad cheap shot a someone who is honestly trying to bring some actual technical expertise to this discussion. Personal attacks can go both ways, you know, but it accomplishes nothing positive. Please keep this sort of crap out of the discussion!

Next it was a claim that just to build a mold is a quarter million dollars. Good grief!

It is not the molds themselves that would cost a quarter mil - it's the INVESTMENT TO THAT POINT that that figure stands for. The equivalent investment for a tube frame car is less than half of that.

Again, please try to keep the counter-arguements to what is real.

Then you implied that approving 4-pot calipers will lead to "ultra-expensive" $2400 APs. Nonsense. Virtually identically powered DSRs reliably achieve threashold braking with hundred dollar cheapie Wilwoods. Yes, there have been quality issues, but arguably no more than for your company's "light weight" iron calipers. If they wish, F-1000 convertors can sell their iron calipers to FC guys and upgrade to 4-pots that bolt right onto the 3.5" pattern common to the vast majority of FC uprights...probably at no net cost, since the iron calipers are so expensive.

"Stopping just fine" and the very real potential of even better stopping with an ultra expensive system are two different technical matters. Which is why we will need to find a way to not allow those sorts of systems if we decide to go the 4-pot route.

[R. Pare]

Way to look out for the little guy, Richard! I've got bad news, Sean, your car isn't legal until you send Richard 2 or 3 grand to mount his spec corners. Sorry, this isn't going to fly, Richard.

Done in the sort of quantities that I can envision would be done, a machined upright could go for as little as $150, and possibly even less, with the hub and bearing bought at NAPA for less than $100. Who the heck keeps feeding you these numbers?

The proposal also is not applicable to converted cars, as there is no one design that can satisfy all the geometries out there. Besides, it would be foolish to force expenditures when they already have the parts. Your admonishments don't fly.

Steve wrote, "We might consider making the maximum body width rule (95cm -- 37.4 ins.) a minimum and make the max 100 (39.4) or 110 (43.3)." The Van Diemen F-1000 would be eliminated by that max (it's ~125cm). So too would be the Gloria (even wider...I forget how much).

So make the max width so that it includes those cars!

You and Steve keep reaching for the 'nuclear option', Richard. First it was the quarter million dollar buy-in to build a composite tub mold. Sure, if you hire an Indy car tub maker to do it for you...why didn't you just ask Ferarri's F-1 shop and get an even higher bid? Get a grip. New Mazda tubs retail for 11-grand, about the same as a new VD tube frame chassis once one adds sides, bottom and body to make them more or less equally 'complete'. And now you guys suddenly come up with this cockamamie insinuation that it'll take "ultra-expensive calipers" to win in F-1000 if we dare to let 4-pot calipers in. What rubbish.

Styan, your condecending attitude is getting to be a bit much! Please keep this sort of technically inaccurate crap out of the discussions. It is highly counterproductive.

[Rennie Clayton]

Richard,

Meaning no disrespect to either you or Steve - both of you have clearly been around the block a time or two and have seen what there is to see - but trying to compare a 1.6g DSR to top FF and FC entries is pretty misleading. I drove a 2004 flat-bottom DSR (making the comparison apples to apples), and regularly operated in the 2.5g regime you quoted for top FC efforts. I have no idea what circumstances surround your 1.6g experience with DSR, but I humbly submit that it wasn't a "top" effort, in my experience.

Having been around all of these tracks on the West Coast more than a few times, I can tell you that Laguna is very heavily reliant on downforce where the FA can and should walk away from a DSR. Very hard to make equivalent comparisons at a track like that, if you ask me. Sears Point, on the other hand, is a track where a DSR can realistically keep up quite easily with the FA's. Even reasonably quick journeymen can keep up within a couple of seconds of top FA times there. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Buttonwillow not being known as a high load track since the g loadings are not significantly different from Sears Point, however I suspect that "reputation" is influenced by the fact that BW has much longer straightaways and doesn't connect the corners together in a flowing fashion as Sears Point does, rather than the actual quality of the track.

I have some thoughts on some of the other technical points as well, which I'll put into an OT posting, but this "conversation" is getting ridiculous. You both damn well need a timeout! Dad, I know you've got some strong feelings on what direction this class should take, however perhaps a more diplomatic tack will get you closer? Richard, it's probably best not to accuse somebody of being condescending after insinuating that you're the party in the argument with "actual technical expertise" and that maybe your opponents knowledge is "a bit suspect". I'm probably going to get flak for this paragraph, but so be it - take your best shot, somebody had to slap you two. Let's get back on track and figure out a solution to the problem(s).

If I can put my horribly un-PC hat on for a moment:

Arguing on the internet is a lot like running in the Special Olympics... even if you win, you're still retarded.

Cheers,
Rennie

(more to say on the technical aspects in a bit)

[R. Pare]

Renni:

I appreciate your comments. I for one wish only to have accurate technical and financial information posted and discussed. Having accurate technical info dismissed out of hand with illogical statements serves no one any good at all.

I for one hope that this class gets off the ground, whatever guise the rules might take, as I believe that it can only help the club in the long run. To that end, the info we digest needs to be real, and discussed maturely.

Hopefully it will get back to that starting now.

[RobLav]

I think Rennie's got it right.

Although the conversations have gone a bit "south", I am reading all that you guys write and will use it to help formulate the F1000 rules. I also appreciate the manufacturers experience.

Thank You.

The context of writing these F1000 proposed rules is a formula car tier system. We are looking at the Hayabusa and ZX-14R sized engines to go in carbon tubs and be comparable to a current FA. The F1000 cars would not have carbon tubs, but their performance should be just above the current Pinto FC. The last tier would be F600, with 600 m/c power, with somewhat comparable performance to a current FF.

We will not flesh out the proposed F1500 (or F1600) and F600 tiers. That will be left for other stakeholders.

$35,000 seems like the sweet spot for new F1000's.

We will research the current F3 rules for our use in F1000.

All this talk about specific chassis and brake components is best left to the open market. Let the free market economies work it. Our intent is to keep the rules relatively simple - ie - max widths, max length, etc, are examples. The class must be built through a combination of grassroots conversions (and (re)-builds) as well as new construction. And the constructors of these cars already have something in mind or have some cars already built. The effect of these issues is that the rules must remain relatively open, at least compared to current FC.

Again, I appreciate your comments and recommendations.

Regards,

Robert Laverty
F1000 Rules Committee

[Rennie Clayton]

Cost of Entry
This is an issue of obvious divisive contention. Marshall Mauney outlined the very cogent example of what it might cost to purchase what is essentially an F500 with a 1 litre engine and suspension: $30k, assembled. Ok, but I would stress that this is built to F500 chassis rules and dimensions, and will probably be slightly more when built to FC rules, which there does seem to be support for. So do you really want to drive an F500 with a 1 litre powerplant, or something a bit more sophisticated? Jon Baytos' base model is $40k, which seems like a more reasonable expectation. I suspect that Elan has access to a good deal of cheap manufacturing capacity, and that the real cost of producing a car is going to be around $45k for a no-frills base model. Sorry, but aside from massively large production runs (implicating spec manufacturing of parts or assemblies) or having access to CFD, FEA, modern automated CAD/CAM production in China for pennies on the dollar, you are not going to design, build and deliver a turn-key race car for much less than that. Resourceful homebuilders doing things on the cheap is another issue, and impossible to gauge without doing significant research on what kind of sweetheart deals you can wrangle for one-off parts. I propose that we be realistic about what this is really going to cost: maybe a few thousand less than a turn-key FC, since a good deal of the rules seem to mirror FC.

Robert, you mentioned $35,000 as the sweet spot for new F1000's - can you share how this number was arrived at, and if it's a concensus of the "F1000 Rules Committee?" What is this committee of which you speak anyway? Is it private, or how does it work?

Horsepower
In my personal opinion, 145-150hp has no place in this discussion. That power level rightly belongs in FC, in which case we should be facilitating conversation and outlining a strategy for petitioning the club to re-allow motorcycle powerplants in FC. Likewise, any discussion of a separated tiering system for motorcycle powered cars at performance levels "similar" to existing classes seems misplaced in my opinion - let's invigorate the existing racing if that's what we want to do. Just as there seems to be a change in engine rules philosophy towards performance-target-driven (vis-a-vis the new SIR rules) rather than technology-or-spec-part-driven (vis-a-vis the existing FF and FC rules which painstakingly lay out part numbers and permitted modifications), my humble opinion is that this philosophy should be adopted for the class tiering itself. F600, for instance, should compete directly against FF-prepared cars, in the same class.

For those who would argue that Formula Ford is Formula Ford, and should be left that way, I say bollocks. That exclusionary attitude is what led us, collectively, down the path of searching for alternative (motorcycle) powerplants in the first place, people! For us to suggest that a new tier of formula classes should be introduced, but "for motorcycle engine powered cars only," is hypocritical, in my opinion. If the idea, however, is to reinvigorate formula racing, then by God, invigorate without reinventing!

That tirade having been uttered, 175-180hp is a good target for a car which is intermediate in performance to FC and FA, again in my opinion.

Safety Structures
In my Pollyanna-ish world, even FF would have tubs. They're safer. Period. Now, we all know that there are drawbacks to tubs - cost and potential longevity have both come into question. Richard and Steve, you don't have access to the massive aerospace composites industry supporting Boeing in the Pacific Northwest that Lee has access to, so it's entirely plausible that his production costs for a tub would be substantially lower than yours. In fact, I believe Lee has produced carbon tubs in the past, and may have a better handle on the costs than he lets on. Regardless, are they more expensive to buy than a new tube frame chassis of equivalent safety? Not if you're comparing a new Van Dieman (made by Elan) chassis with anti-intrusion panels to a new Formula Mazda (also made by Elan) tub. Pretty much the same cost there, but granted that it's only one example - I'm sure there are others which are more or less favourable. Certainly most folks have been very quick to throw out generalized examples that strongly support their own viewpoint, but I'd like to see the entirety of the situation before throwing my lot in with either.

Brakes
I'll just say this from driving a car equipped with 2-pot FC brakes last year - please, Dear God, let us have 4-pot calipers. I implore, beseech - nay! - grovel at the foot of the rule-making Gods to allow us to make braking a performance challenge for the driver, rather than a conservation challenge. I know, a lot of people get all nostalgic and teary-eyed at the thought of the "strategic" battle of conserving your brakes for the end of the race, and "that's just part of the challenge." Bupkis, I say, we do sprint races and we should have proper brakes - not a paperweight masquerading as a caliper. As Robert rightly opines - give us 4-pots and let the open market deal with prices.

Weight
1000lbs seems a bit heavy in my opinion. I don't care for ballast, but if you want to hand guys like me the advantage of being able to strategically place significant amounts of weight in areas of the car where it will give me the most advantage, well then I will take it, kicking and screaming, all the way to the finish line. Insert evil laugh here.

Yeah well, I'll probably have more commentary down the line, but I'll shut up for now.

Cheers,
Rennie

[carnut169]

Hey hey... a new player in this discussion! Even adding a bit of anti-PC comments- fantastic!

While I will agree to nearly everything you posted above I have to stick w/ the 1000lb min. Probably won't get my way there but I'd rather see you put the weight where you want it, if the alternative is running lighter.

The rules committee is made up of several of us who have built, or started building F1000 cars. Right now we have 5ish members but are contacting other FC drivers who we feel can add to the discussion. Other people including CRB members, engine builders, and chassis builders will be contacted for consultation. We will have people both for and against, but really no one w/ a vested interest will be on the committee.

It is this committee that is turning all of this talk into action and will be doing the leg work that actually turns this idea into a class.

[Marshall Mauney]

Rennie - great post!

Cost of Entry
I propose that we be realistic about what this is really going to cost: maybe a few thousand less than a turn-key FC, since a good deal of the rules seem to mirror FC.

Why just a few $K less? When you've eliminated $10K of engine and $5K of tranny and replaced them with $3-5K worth of combined lump, wouldn't you expect to see closer to $10K? Dry sump should be similar, right? Mounting, intake, starter, etc - all similar. Even after paying for the diff, I don't see why the cost gain isn't bigger. (Somebody tell me what I'm missing here....)

Just as there seems to be a change in engine rules philosophy towards performance-target-driven (vis-a-vis the new SIR rules) rather than technology-or-spec-part-driven (vis-a-vis the existing FF and FC rules which painstakingly lay out part numbers and permitted modifications), my humble opinion is that this philosophy should be adopted for the class tiering itself. F600, for instance, should compete directly against FF-prepared cars, in the same class.

OK - I'll bite on the F600 statement. Why shouldn't it be allowed to have a higher performance potential than FF? If all new classes must adhere to performance limits created by the use of 30-40 yr old technology, then we can never move forward. The fact is that even street cars now regularly have far more power, handling, and longevity that the best-in-class from a few years ago - why shouldn't our race hardware follow the same track? Heck, F500 has gotten FAR faster over the past ten years as new engines have been allowed. Has it obsoleted some hardware? Yes. Has it allowed the class to live and grow? Yes.

IMHO, what we do NOT want in ANY class is a situation where the fastest combination requires the use of an out-of-production junkyard component that is made of 100% pure unobtanium. Giving a slight advantage to the new stuff allows a class to hold costs down by leaning towards in-production components. Personally, I think we should combine F500, FF, and F600 (TBD) with a rules base that allows all to compete, but with a very slight bias towards the newest technology (F600). Why not take the same approach with FC/F1000?

[Stan Clayton]

Yeah, I took a time-out by hauling the bucks to the paint shop.

Here's Stan, Steve and Richard...



And I'll take a longer one tomorrow by hauling Capt America's chassis to the Skunk Works for a new modular rear clip...

[Rennie Clayton]

Marshall,

Thank you for the kind words. You raise a couple of very well targeted points, and I suspect that we are both looking at the same picture, albeit from slightly different angles. Let me explain...

Cost of Entry
Let's assume for the moment that an F1000 is going to be approximately $10k cheaper than a new FC. New turn-key FC Zetec cars from Van Dieman or Mygale are $53k, -$10k = $43k. My estimate of "around $45k" as being more reasonable doesn't seem too out of line right? A properly blueprinted motorcycle engine is probably going to be more like $6-8k from a reputable builder, plus $2k-ish for a differential and a couple of miscellaneous dollars in a back-half frame = $8k-11k vs. $15k, which is why I said "a few thousand less than FC." Yes, most of the other things are going to be about the same production costs, but at least you can see my rationale behind saying that the difference in cost is not going to be an order of magnitude.

Class Consolidation and the Like
I applaud your line of reasoning here, honestly. This is a very good way of looking at it - although I think that the same thing can be accomplished with equivalent performance. Now, you raise the very real fear that by adhering to performance limits created by 30-40 year old technology that we will not be able to move forward. I humbly submit that there is another way to look at moving forward - by keeping the performance relatively unchanged while reducing the cost of competing. These new technologies are cheaper to own, so I believe we would find that even by keeping performance exactly the same as "older" technology, people are going to gravitate toward the new ones based on the cost incentive alone. By making the performance playing field level instead of favouring a specific technology, you encourage innovation, cost-competition and variety in competition.

In any case, I think there is a compelling reason that our race cars should not necessarily follow the same track of ever-increasing spirals of power and perfomance seen in street-car circles: every time we allow these kinds of performance advances, it incurrs cost to the competitors. If we give new engine classifications performance advantages every time they are introduced, you are effectively forcing your existing competitor base to upgrade their machinery. If that's the intention, to get the whole field to upgrade to specific technology, then all's well and good - but I don't think that's the intention here...

And one more thing on tubs
I didn't address longevity in my original post. I've seen a couple of references to delamination nightmares and some uncertainty raised about just how long carbon composite structures should remain in competition. I would like to simply point out that the build and testing requirements that any new composite tub must meet is aimed at LMP-2 / F3 / Atlantic performance levels, and our application would have roughly 20% reduced power levels from F3 standards, and 60% reduced from LMP-2. Before the clamoring begins about how "it's not just engine power that introduces stress to a chassis, duh" - let me just say that I know this. My point is it's already an over-engineered standard, and we are putting a dinky engine in it. Combined with significantly lower weight (20% reduced from F3, and 45% reduced from LMP-2), my personal belief is that F1000 cars with a tub are significantly under any dangerous repetitive stress threshold and should last at least as long as any tube frame car. Your opinions can, and obviously do, vary...

Cheers,
Rennie

[R. Pare]

Sorry Stan, you got it all wrong - I think I'm actually more like Shemp than any of those 3!

[Stan Clayton]

Richard in happier times...about 1940.

[Marshall Mauney]

I humbly submit that there is another way to look at moving forward - by keeping the performance relatively unchanged while reducing the cost of competing. These new technologies are cheaper to own, so I believe we would find that even by keeping performance exactly the same as "older" technology, people are going to gravitate toward the new ones based on the cost incentive alone. By making the performance playing field level instead of favouring a specific technology, you encourage innovation, cost-competition and variety in competition.

OK - I see your point.

Just remember that any successful innovation will increase speeds (or, to your point, lower costs), so any successful innovation will be disruptive. To some degree, you can't fight the 'design-of-the-month' issue without going to a spec car, so instead, if you raise the bar very slightly over time, you limit the advantage by allowing anyone buying a new vehicle (or upgrading) to have the fastest path be the newest, most supportable, and thus least expensive over the long haul.

Let's face facts - most new entrants to a given class are buying used equipment, and don't really expect to be front-runners immediately. They run for a while, then buy the car they REALLY want. The goal (I think) is to make sure that someone doesn't have to wait for one of a handful of 10-yr-old class-killers (RT41s? DB-1s in the 90s?) to go up for sale to be able to buy a competitive front-running car. This keeps the builders happy by giving them a slight edge, while keeping prices reasonable by making sure the edge is very, very slight, i.e., if a 3-yr old car can podium every national event, then how much more is the new cutting-edge winning car worth?

Which is more important - cost control or equality of performance? I believe it's a balance, and the right answer probably takes both points of view into account.

[Gerry Dedonis]

[size=1]Marshall,[/size]

[size=1]One important part of having a new car doesn't necessarily mean that it has improved technology but the chassis and components are new and fresh. Similar to tires, every part of a car goes through a life cycle of stresses and strains. Older cars need more "massage" time to keep their competitive edge. Professional teams sell off cars and components after they complete "x" number of race cycles or race hours.[/size]

[size=1]What I am in favor of is modern technology that shows through in improved metalurgy and more precise machining processes coupled with electronic engine management systems. Formula Zetec and Formula SCCA have shown the durable capability of engines that will run for years with routine maintenance and without needing expensive rebuilds.[/size]

[size=1]Personally, I would rather spend time on race set-ups and racing rather than working on race cars.[/size]


[size=1]Gerry Dedonis [/size]