I have to say that although I do not agree with all that Stan or is son Rennie are putting forward,it sure is refreshing to have someone willing to share his veiws from a position within the comp board.His agenda is clear,there are some problems so let's have a look and see if there is a better way.If there are new possiblitys to grow,let's investigate it.JB
The Cost of Technology
Rennie: Your cost estimates of entry is pretty good. But the $53,000 starting point of a VD or Mygale may not be the correct example. Remember, you have rejected the fundamental technological limitations of those cars. The new FM or F BMW is a better place to start.
In the late '70s when FSV changed over from air cooled to water cooled, Lola, David Bruns, and I all introduced cars which were an evolution of the previous air cooled FSVs. March and Ralt however introduced F3 cars adapted to the FSV rules. At the first pro race at Phoenix my cars qualified one and two. Lola, Bruns, and I had all under designed our cars for the class and when we got to the road courses we were toast. I did manage to have the entire second row of the grid for the season ending race at Phoenix. The following year we were all out of the FSV business.
The most closely related and competitive racing class to what we are discussing is European F3. That is the technological base for this class. I think those cars are the neatest thing going. I only wish Toyota FA had chosen that formula when they went to the spec cars years ago. In testing the USF3 cars were nearly as fast as the pro Toyota FA.
Maybe what you are proposing is the US answer to F3. In that case I support your rules proposals. And all my previous arguments and objections are here by withdrawen. But the cars you are talking about are double the price, $70,000 to $80,000 new. That is the technology you are embracing and that is the cost. I only question whether SCCA club racing can support such a class.
I would love to be involved with cars such as these but it won't be my nickel.
Remember, the cost of under designing a class is total loss of your investment. Even if the car is successful, if it is percieved to be under designed and vunerable you will not sell enough to recoup the investment. Lola, Autoresearch, Zink and a couple others were never players in the new water cooled FSV.
Under designing a class: I have been doing torsion tests on cars since the late '70s. Examples: A 1978 Z14 FSV monocoque was 4200 ft lbs per degree for the entire assembly. A 1979 Z16 FF was 1800. A 1985 March Indy Lights car was 16,000. A Swift 008a was 10,000. A '97 Lola Indy lights was 24,000(estimate). A 2003 Stohr DSR was 3700 (Jay Lovett's car). A 1994 Citation FF 5200. I estimate that the new car will have to be 13,000 to 15,000 which is right at a good F3 chassis. You can't get to those numbers with a tube chassis or a composite reinforced tube structure. It will have to be a full composite tub. I am estimating my new Citation Zetec chassis will be about 6000 ft lbs per degree, good for tubes but not competitive in F3.
Steve,
I believe you may have misinterpreted my clear preference for tubs on the basis of safety as an outright rejection of the technological limitations of tube frame cars. This could not be further from the truth; I have a great deal of experience with tube frame cars of various types and have a good deal of respect for their capabilities. I simply happen to feel that tubs offer a superior level of protection that cannot be provided by tube frames. Your torsional stiffness expose is quite interesting though, those are good numbers to have at hand. I must confess some ignorance, however, as to why the new cars we're talking about will "have to be" 13,000 to 15,000 ft-lbs per degree. Why do they have to be the same stiffness as a good F3 tub when the cars will be 20% lighter and 20% less powerful? I'm not asking to be a smart-ass, I'd like for you to educate me on the subject.
That having been said, I seriously don't have an agenda - if tube frames are mandated, then everybody is going to be playing in the same sand lot and we'll all have fun with our tube frames. There will be some grumbling from the tub supporters at first, but in the end all the serious parties will proceed to design and build a car to the rules that they feel has the best chance of delivering a swift kick to the stones of the competition. Normality will be assured, and everything will run smoothly in the cosmos.
What I have not seen, up to this point, is an accurate, open and direct comparison of the hard costs to produce the cars - mainly a lot of rhetoric, and most of it directed negatively at the cost of tubs, even in the face of reasonably laid out comparisons of cost for actual, existing off the shelf pieces. I mean, c'mon, what gives with that? Is there something intimidating or scary about tubs, and I'm just in the dark here? Where's the animosity coming from? Can't we all just get along?
And Richard, please don't be offended by that last paragraph, even you have to admit that you were speaking in theory about what it "would" cost to produce a carbon tub.
FM and F BMW are both expensive spec series, so I think it would be a mistake to use them as a point of direct comparison. Anybody here remember what happened with the Swift 008.a? Ok, everybody here agrees that amateur spec series are no way to reduce costs, and Pro Spec Series are sure as balls not typically intended to reduce costs. But wait a second...
How about some hard and fast numbers?
Let's look at the shining example of the Formula Renault composite tub. The 1600 car is a carbon tub (yes, built to F3 standards) with wings. It sells for $30k, new. Turn-key. Take the engine and transmission, sell them off for, what, $10k total (?), put back $8-$11k for a motorcyle drivetrain into it. And we have a $28-$31k car. Ok so I just proved myself to be a liar about the "actual realistic" costs of entry, didn't I? Since I'm the dumbass that made the original estimate, and everybody that commented on them thought they were good solid numbers, let me revise it thusly:
But it's funny you mention the Formula Mazda... since a new tub costs $11k from Elan. And a new tube frame from Van Dieman, including anti-intrusion panels, floorpan and cockpit bodywork (essentially bringing it to the same level of "preparation") costs exactly the same. Now, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed - and I'd love for somebody to educate me on the hard costs of off the shelf parts - but I'm just not seeing the difference in cost to prepare the rest of the car. At worst, the costs are exactly the same, according to my math.
- With a steel tube Van Dieman conversion, expect to spend $43k.
- With a carbon tub F-Renault conversion, expect to spend $31k.
If someone(s) can help me with the research, I'll put it all together in a column format so we can look at it side-by-side. Then we can make informed decisions instead of rhetorical ones. Any takers? I'd love to even get some ballparks from the existing conversions going on so we can find out the whole landscape.
Cheers,
Rennie
Cost of tubs
The cost of a tub will have one large component. The amortization of the tooling costs. The body work alone for my Zetec car will run $20,000 for the molds. I furnished the buck. Say the buck cost $5000. How much of that cost should I recover with the sale of each car?
Recheck your prices for a Formula Renault. Those prices were quoted when the Euro was $.85. It is now $1.20.
I engineered an Lola T97 Indy Lights for Pac West. That chassis had 30,000 race and testing miles. Those tubs cost $40,000 in 2000.
My point was that if you want composite tubs expect the costs to be very high.
Simply put the stiffer the chassis, the less spring, damper and ARB forces will be required to control the motion of the chassis. That in turn results in greater grip and longer tire life. Need I say more. It also requires less physical energy from the driver to control the chassis.
$11,000 sounds like a lot for a tube frame. Carbon is in such short supply that it is being rationed by suppliers. Unless you can sneek it out the back door of Boeing you can not get it for a new project. The Swift 016a is all glass, I hear.
Frankly guys I don't understand how composite tubs even got into the picture besides all the discussion of cost to develop,carbon fibre is in such SHORT supply as well as kevlar that I don't see how in the near future that the use of carbon is even feasible from a price/availability standpoint.
Dave Craddock
I am not having any problem getting carbon fiber.
Rennie, you bring up an interesting idea with converting either a new FM or F Renault. Ok, lets just for a second stick to the idea that an FM tub costs the same as the new Van Dieman tube chassis with the bodywork and such. The reason the FM costs so much more turnkey isnt just in the engine and trans. Maybe the suspension parts costs the same, but the uprights, bearings, brakes, wings, engine cover, etc all cost much more. Assuming the brakes are allowed in the new rules, would it be possible to bring the cost down? Unlikely unfortunately, so we may have to just forget about this conversion being cost effective.
Now the F Renault. I am not very familiar with this car, but is it available here? Lets just say it is, and that it can be had for a price similar to a new Van Dieman Zetec. Selling the engine/trans and installing a conversion to 1000 cc motorcycle sounds excellent, but what kind of other hitches would be involved? Do 13" wheels fit? Would the brakes be affordable, if allowed by the rules? How hard is it to get spares etc.?
I'm not completely against carbon, in fact a carbon car would just be cool, besides safer. However I dont see any current carbon cars that would be in the sub $50k range. Maybe someone like Lee can show that a carbon tub can be built for a price similar to the $11k or whatever it is for a new Van Dieman chassis. Dont forget that in addition to the mold and materials and labor to build said tub, it also must be FIA tested prior to being approved by the SCCA. How much does such a test cost, assuming the tub passes the first try?
Just my 2 cents
Craig
It's pretty hard to really come up with good cars to compare tub costs with for this discussion, as we can expect that the per-year sales of these cars per manufacturer will be significantly lower than for cars built for some of the European one-make pro formula classes, such as F. Renault, where the initial up-front costs for the engineering and tooling were pair for by Renault Sport, and the yearly sales are a magnitude or 4 higher than we can ever expect over here. Costs need to be amortized over the run of a particular design (if not in the first year, depending on what the accountants say), so a design where 50 cars a years are produced can be sold a lot cheaper than the same design with only 20 cars sold, never mind the other economies of scale that can cloud the picture.
I applaud Tatuus and Renault Sport for coming up with a very inexpensive chassis for the Europeans to run. However, if Tatuus had had to amortise the costs that Renault absorbed instead, the prices would have also been much higher. Also, crack the tub once, and it is pretty much unrepairable (given that to me, a successful repair will revert the car to its former performance and safety level).
My costs on building proper carbon/kevlar/alu honeycomb chassis are based on my knowledge of exactly what the costs were to March for their cars, as well as Lola and Reynard. Granted, the Indy Cars are built to a higher mandated spec than we will ever need, but that difference is primarily in the mandated thicknesses of each component of the shell, which translates into a cost difference primarily in the cloths and honeycomb, but not all that much elsewhere, labor included. Even the cheesily made Swift Atlantic 002 (or whatever the proper number was) incurred mold and layup costs remarkably similar to the Lola Indy Lights car, and it was falling apart at its first races!
Can true tubs be made cheap? Yes, but franky most of what I can see as being done by some I would never set MY rump into, nevermind an offspring! It also depends on what you call "cheap".
As to chassis stiffness stuff: In a simplified nutshell, as you increase the chassis stiffness, the car can be set up to a higher level of predictable response and handling precision than a less-stiff chassis, allowing the driver to drive closer or at the absolute limit a lot easier. Obviously, there is the usual law of diminishing returns, but if you took a specific tube design at 5000 lbft/degree and magicly transformed it to 15000 (a decent proper tub in this size), the 3x stiffer tub car will clean the tube framed cars clock with plenty to spare.
We ourselves saw some pretty startling increases in performance with some of older cars when the same frame was doubled in stiffness (2000 originally changed to about 4000) just by the addition of a couple of tubes in the right places. In working with some of the Indy Lights cars, some significant performance increases were seen by a couple of teams that had the capability of adding extra layers of carbon to both the inside and outside of the tubs (not legal, mind you, but how the heck is Tech going to find out unless they count the layers in a wrecked tub!).
This is why I caution about thinking that tube framed cars can co-exist with proper tubs without a significant performance differential. You need to decide which way this class wants to go, one type of frame or the other, but not both.
Can you make a tube frame with stressed panels for not much more than standard tube frame? Very definetely yes. Can you get a significant performance increase that way? Very definetly yes. To me, this will allow the conversion guys at least a fighting chance against the bespoke design cars, as long as you stay away from allowing full composit tubs.
Having raced FF's for years, I would feel much safer in a badly made carbon tub than a steel tube FF/FC chassis. But badly made carbon tubs will never be allowed in SCCA, they will have to pass modern tests. Badly made steel tube frames are perfectly legal.
Not according to Dave Hoople's "spy photos".Originally Posted by S Lathrop
http://apexspeed.com/forums/attachme...achmentid=1938
http://apexspeed.com/forums/attachme...achmentid=1937
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Tube vs Carbon
The main point I have tried to make is that if the rules allow any form of monocoque construction, that will be the required design criteria. There simply are too many advantages to composite construction.
As to cost, I think the VD tube frame is built in England and the Elan tub is built in the US. Today, production costs are way lower in the US. I expect that domestically produced cars will be able to under sell imported cars. The $35,000 price target may be realistic. We can produce competitive cars in this country. Look at FF as an example.
If F1000 rules stick with the FC frame rules, I count seven potential manufacturers with tooling and current adaptable designs that could be in production within 12 months: Bunting, Carbir, Citation, Piper, Sauce, Stohr, and Swift. I apologize to anyone I have omitted. I have a standing deal with Don Sevenpiper that if I build the rear drive assembly he will build a F1000 to compete with mine.
Lee: poorly designed is poorly designed. There is an example of a Reynard F3 where the driver was seriously injured because there was a failure of the tub in the cockpit area. When carbon structures fail the failure is complete, vs. tubes tend to yield and stretch but retain some integrity.
I think F3 type class would be very interesting, so would a continuation of the FC type class. But the two types won't co-exist. I think the inherent lower costs of the tube frame should favor that technological limitation.
Wow. How can we stray so far from what started as a nice clean, simple proposition.
Remember what I keep saying: Low cost, high performance.
This is what is great about F1000. Take those carbon tubs and run them in FM, FA, or FS. Do you need MORE classes for them? Yes, they are better. Should we discuss allowing carbon tubs in FV?
They are NOT what F1000 should be about.
Here is a quote from the FF forum, and exactly what I am afraid of:
That Giraffe is a horse designed by committee. How true.
K.I.S.S.
Low cost, durable drivelines. Acheivable weight. A place to run uncompetitive cars.... isn't that the point?
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
F1000 chassis design
Steve-
fascinating torsional stiffness numbers; Thanks for sharing!! with regard to your conclusion:
".......... I estimate that the new car will have to be 13,000 to 15,000 witch is right at a good F3 chassis. You can't get to those numbers with a tube chassis or a composite reinforced tube structure. It will will have to be a full composite tub. ........................."
what are you holding constant that gets you to your conclusion: 1.) safety; 2.) cost; 3.) weight; 4.) frontal area; 5.) structural fault tolerance; 6.) some combination of 1-5; 7.) something I haven't thought of?
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
>
Art:
On track performance. You can translate increased torsional regidity into more grip.
A couple people have stated that because the F1000 is lighter weight, it will not need the strength of a heavier car. The opposite may actually be true.
The F1000 will be lighter and with a lower center of gravity. Because of this, a F1000 will see higher lateral acceleration for equal tires. The car will be able to go faster before it achieves the same load on the tires.
The weight of the driver and his center of gravity will not change. But that mass is located in the weakest part of the chassis and we are going to accelerate it at a higher rate. Bottom line, the loads on the chassis will not go down and may increase.
Art: To clarify a bit more on your question:
While a perfectly adequate car can be made that is in the 5-6000 lb stiffness range, if you are talking about modern composit tubs they will be made to the higher levels of 10-15000. Again assuming all other things being equal, the stiffer car automaticly
has the advantage, effectively ruling out anyone wanting to build a tube framed car and having any hope of being competitive.
However, I also doubt highly that a modern composit tub can be made that is that soft (the 5-6000 lb number), and still be safe - ie - if it is that flimsy, something is terribly wrong!
Most likely, though, it also wouldn't pass the FIA tests, so it wouldn't be allowed to run.
Isn't this post about F1000 rules?
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
F1000 chassis design
Steve/Richard-
I understand that all other things being equal, higher torsional stiffness wins! I also understand that graphite/kevlar epoxy is a higher strength, stiffness, & cost per unit mass structural solution! what I'm struggling with is: what precludes space frame and semi-monoque solutions that yield 10,000-15,000 lbs/deg? I may be having a senior moment but it seems to me that another constraint is required......... if a "for equal mass" constraint is added to your arguement then I understand AND agree. the point of inquiring was to understand how many pounds (70, 80, 90, 100, .....) were being assumed for the chassis at the required 10,000-15,000 lbs/deg F3 performance level.
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
Carbon Fiber
But I'll bet your prices have went up substantially over the last year or so
I'm going to kind of step out of this discussion as I think the idea of a low cost, high performance class is turning into a high cost, high performance class. I'll let you guys fight this one out and if there's a possibility to fit in the rules you decide on.....then maybe we'll play.
But to be honest, I won't even consider building a car for this class if carbon monocoque cars are immediately allowed. I know they are technologically superior to a tube frame car, there's no question and no argument. The argument is whether they belong in this class right now. I personally don't think so.
Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.
Matt-
The idea is NOT turning into a high cost/ high performance class... you just have a couple people talking about it who are effectively ruining the whole idea. Not that I don't apprieciate the experience that some of these guys bring to the table, I'm just not sure that everyone is grasping what F1000 should be all about.
Not all of us are losing focus, if I have anything to do w/ it, the carbon tubs will not be allowed in F1000.
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
Art:
There are no other criteria than to make everyone aware of what will (eventually, if not right off the bat) be necessary if you try to mix carbon tubs and tube frames and maintain equal performance potential. But you may be right in bringing up the min weight bit - that I believe will be the achilles heel to making a super-stiff tube frame.
It may very well be possible to make a tube frame of this size that gets at least closer to those higher numbers - I just don't know exactly how feasable that possibility is without the frame getting overly heavy. Most likely to keep near the minimum weight of 1000 lbs the frame will need to weigh no more than 100-125 lbs. Unfortunately, I don't know off hand exactly what the weight exchange will be for this powerplant vs the Pinto, so I'm really guessing. Our current (actually '94) frame weighs about 74 lbs at an installation stiffness of over 5200, but whether or not an extra 25 pounds of tubes can find a usefull home is a real good question! If we still had the old FEA model, it would be interesting to see what just doubling the wall thickness of select tubes would accomplish, but I doubt highly that we could get a 2X stiffness increase , nevermind 3X. Obviously, I could be wrong about the 2X increase, but past experience makes me doubt it at this date.
A tube frame reinforced by bonded panels has a much greater chance in that regard, but again I can't answer with any authority just how high you can go without again getting into a weight penalty situation. If I were to build a car for this class, I certainly would do a design study!
Is it the word Carbon, or what?
Richard, thank you very much. That kind of well thought-out post is the kind of discussion I was looking to start. But on the whole, frankly, I'm kind of disappointed - instead of being open to listening to and contributing facts to a frank discussion about chassis construction costs, people are using "carbon!" as a subtle pseudonym for "expensive and bad!" without regard to the reality of modern construction costs. I had high hopes that perhaps we could discuss the facts rationally, but clearly this does not appear to be the case.
Sean, I have a great deal of respect for what you've done with your car, and of course your opinions on what F1000 should and should not be. However, "Isn't this post about F1000 rules? ... you just have a couple people talking about it who are effectively ruining the whole idea ... I'm just not sure that everyone is grasping what F1000 should be all about" ?? - shame on you! The other people in this conversation have intelligent opinions and should be allowed to voice them without being faced with those kinds of derisive and marginalizing comments. I have not, and will not ever accuse you of ruining the F1000 concept, regardless of what opinions you voice or what suggestions you would like to discuss, and I would appreciate it if you afforded me the same courtesy. The point with F1000, in my opinion, should be to modernise the drivelines of our existing classes and bring us forward to this millenium without breaking the bank. While we're at it, within the bounds of reasonable and provable expenditure, we should embrace other modern technologies that probably afford some advantages to performance or safety. Like 4-pot calipers. And yes, like composite tubs. We should consider them in their entirety without tossing them out of hand like they're stupid ideas whose supporters "just don't get it."
If you're using cost as the point of argument, then the facts do not hold up under scrutiny. If you're using performance as a point of argument, as Matt Conrad points out, then you have a point - just don't use cost as a scapegoat when it doesn't really have anything to do with it. Yes, a composite monocoque car is probably going to have a performance advantage over a tube frame car. Isn't the point of this class to be high performance? I humbly submit that the costs will be approximately the same for each technology, and have requested that the folks participating here put forward current facts and figures to dispute or support that notion. Here, I'll start...
Tube Frame w/intrusion panels & bodywork
Van Diemen F1000
$40,000, turn-key
Van Diemen RF06 Zetec
$11,000, tub only
$53,000, turn-key
Composite Monocoque
DJ Racecars Firehawk
http://users.breathe.com/defiant1/djracecars/carbontub.html
$45,000, turn-key
Formula Mazda
$11,000, tub only
Ralt RT-41
$18,000, tub only
ATR (F-Renault)
$?
Dallara F3
$?
ATS Silani F3
$?
Martini F3
$?
TOM's F3
$?
Anybody with more facts and figures on available chassis?
Cheers,
Rennie
I have in front of me a swift 014Trunnion redesign Engineering document - Swift says the complete car torsional stiffness is 5000ftlbdeg. I don't know where these 15,000 numbers are coming from for carbon tubs.
Also, I personally feel that driving a tube frame car in this day and age, is about like driving without a helmet.
Lee;
My numbers came from tests I have conducted. By most standards Swift was not very stiff. The numbers I run are for the assembled car, axle to axle, loaded and restrained through the suspension. The loads are 300 to 500 ft lbs. I tested the Swift 008a well above the number you give.
Stan;
I have not seen the 016a. The pictures sure looked like carbon. I was repeating what I had been told. Give me some time and I will be able to tell for sure. I am engineering a car in the Atlantic series this season.
Matt, I totally agree. Guess I'll just continue building my Formula S. It doesn't look like F1000 will work for me.But I'll bet your prices have went up substantially over the last year or so
I'm going to kind of step out of this discussion as I think the idea of a low cost, high performance class is turning into a high cost, high performance class. I'll let you guys fight this one out and if there's a possibility to fit in the rules you decide on.....then maybe we'll play.
But to be honest, I won't even consider building a car for this class if carbon monocoque cars are immediately allowed. I know they are technologically superior to a tube frame car, there's no question and no argument. The argument is whether they belong in this class right now. I personally don't think so.
Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.
Scott Woodruff
83 RT5 Ralt/Scooteria Suzuki Formula S
(former) F440/F5/FF/FC/FA
65 FFR Cobra Roadster 4.6 DOHC
A quick note on the 014 chassis - in the SAE paper written about it, the tub stiffness was 19,144#.ft/degree. That gives an engine bay stiffness of only 7000#.ft/degree - less than half what we got with our FF. Even if Swift had managed to get that same figure for their engine bay, the overall number would still have been only 8400, a pretty bad number by modern carbon tub car specs. I hope that they did a better job with the new car - but then again, the Swift doesn't need to really worry about stiffness as they do not have to compete against anyone!
Compare that 19144# bare tub number to Lee's own claim to a 4000# frame-only number and you'll start to see what we are getting at!
Rennie, of course you are right, everyone has a right to an opinion.
I just find it frustrating when I read posts like Greg, Scott & Matt's... people who, like me, got excited about the original concept of F1000. Heck- I got excited enough to do it! They and others are reading all this talk about stiffness, safety, carbon tubs, yada yada... these are people who, in my mind, have 90-97 Van Diemens. They own CFC cars that were recently homologated and have to run in FC. They own previously legal MC powered FCs or ?? Next, they sell off Pintos, LD200s, bellhousings and guess what? It pays for the conversion. Free. Oh, as a benefit they get to race those 98+ FCs. Ha! They get to shift at 12k, and when the motor gets tired (mileage unknown, but stock=reliable) for minimal $$ they get a new one w/ trans!
Joy! The concept of F1000!
But then.... lets create some rules. How about Lee Stohr builds a carbon tub F1000 that spanks everyone. Is that fun? Not really. Now we are thinking about staying in FC where at least we don't have to go through the conversion process only to get spanked by a better design. F1000? Nah.
To chassis builders I say yes, join in as Van Diemen, Gloria, and Speads have ALREADY DONE with tube frame, stock 1000cc, 1000lb cars. (Now they might have a slight advantage but we will allow those older cars to run a bit lighter- my idea). Now the guys who see how much fun the converters are having buy cars and the class grows with cars that are more or less equal. That, in my opinion is getting the concept of F1000.
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
Lets try to keep some discipline in this topic
I think it is fairly clear that we have two pretty firmly divided camps on this discussion. On the pro high tech composite tubbed car side we have Stan Clayton, Rennie Clayton and Lee Stohr. I have a great deal of respect for each of your racing business resumes, but I do not think your views and agenda are in tune with the majority involved in this discussion.
This whole F1000 idea started out as a place to race converted mid-90s Van Diemens preparred to a common set of rules. Central to that concept was to avoid the 'arms race' as seen in DSR. We are looking to provide the maximum 'bang for the buck'. To help the class grow we realize that manufacturer involvement is desireable. BUT, we are not interested in a $70,000 open wheel version of the current DSR crop. We see natural F1000 manufacturers as Speads/OMS/Jedi/Gloria/etc... each of these makers has managed to sell rollers over the past two years well below $30,000 with VERY unfavorable exchange rates. Surely a domestic manufacturer could do even better (Sauce/Citation/Piper/Pheonix)?
Our initial discussions are centered around ways to avoid the pitfalls of DSR/FC/FF. We would like to see a disincentive for the "motor/chassis/shocks of the week". None of this spending actually makes the racing more fun for the drivers. That's a big reason they are all leaving these classes. We want to create any and all incentives to keep total investment very low to encourage participation. In my opinion $70-80,000 cars don't do that. My personal vision is something closer to a formula car take on the Legends car concept (just not quite as crude).
So can we maybe spin off this discussion on the benefits of composite tubs and get back to trying to create a class where you can go very fast for a fairly low initial investment ($20-30,000 max). Ideas on how to minimize spending on engines/shocks/tires/chassis upgrades seem like good discussion material to me.
Here are a few tidbits I would like to see hashed out:
1) How to limit engine spending (require them to be stock, SIR, claiming rule???)
2) How to limit chassis of the week (track/WB limits, min width???)
3) How to limit tire budgets (Spec tire, spec range R60, R600...)
Thats all for now...
Sean
P.S. Rennie, I appreciate you analysis of the FR1600. I think that if the SCCA had not so badly screwed that whole thing up we might not have to be having these discussions right now...
Last edited by Sean Maisey; 02.16.06 at 12:14 AM. Reason: didn't mean to leave Pheonix out...
How about another opinion?
Guys,
I got no dog in this fight at all, but would love to throw in my .02 from doing Formula First as an attempt to help. In writing rules, don't try to limit spending as it will never work as people will always figure out ways to out-spend the other guy. Try instead to limit the effects of spending. It has worked pretty well in the two years of Formula First, new cars and converted old cars racing side-by-side.
I must add that I just love seeing/reading the "big dogs" of our world having "geek fights" on the internet. It makes me feel better about myself, thanks.
Bill
Bill Bonow
"Wait, which one is the gas pedal again?"
Sean (O'Connell, not Maisey),
No problem, as I said before, I consider all of the opinions to date on the subject as valid and intelligent. Your descriptions of the thought process and membership of your "rules committe," however, makes me feel like there is, in fact, a vested interest in play by the mere fact that you all have significant existing capital investments to protect. I don't really have a problem with vested interests, mind you, that's cool - but honestly I haven't seen anything that differentiates F1000 as you've laid it out from Formula Continental. Except 4-pot calipers.
Formula Continental with a modern and cheap motorcycle powerplant is what you're after, from how I read your statement of intent. I applaud that heartily, and in fact feel that it is a concept to be pursued heavily - in Formula Continental. Please see my first technical post in this topic for reference, specifically the horsepower section; what I said about Formula Ford equally applies to Formula Continental. For motorcycle engines in FC, I believe we should be hitting the pavement to drum up support and massive letter writing campaigns to the CRB petitioning to have them re-allowed into FC. I'll even volunteer to help draft an example letter, if that would help.
Then you can have your cake and eat it too! Cheap conversions to breathe new life into older designs and an immedate national class with some of the deepest competition in the country for you to race against. What's not to like?
If, on the other hand, we're bridging the performance gap from FC to FA with a new class, then we need to step up to the plate with better, safer technology all around - not just with the drivetrain. In my opinion.
Sean (Maisey, not O'Connell),
My agenda, quite simply, is safety. If tube frames were safer than composite monocoques, I would be campaigning for them heavily despite their performance disadvantage. I doubt you have any qualms about having safety as an agenda, at least I should hope not. Nobody here thinks $70,000-$80,000 cars are going to do the trick, even the "pro high tech composite tubbed car side." Please re-read my posts if you believe that to be the case, as I thought I was being pretty explicit in terms of how much money one could expect to spend (again, in my opinion). I certainly don't want to see that kind of escalation, and think it's a shame about the cost of entry in DSR, but it is what it is. The only point I have been trying to make, unsuccessfully if your post is any indication, is that composite monocoque cars need not cost any more than a new tube frame car.
But, meh... if nobody really cares to hear that and accept or discuss it, well, c'est la vie, right? All I can do is try to inform, the rest is up to you. If the subject is closed in your mind, then it's closed and I'll shut up.
I'll leave you with this thought, however: the current cost of entry for state of the art in FC is $53,000. Robert Laverty of the F1000 Rules Committee says, "The effect of these issues is that the rules [for F1000] must remain relatively open, at least compared to current FC." What exactly makes you think this is going to make things any cheaper, let alone get you to $20-$30,000 initial investment?
Cheers,
Rennie ("little dog") Clayton
I don't believe mc powered FCs is the answer... very hard to regulate within F1000- now we are going to try and make it equal to the Pinto? I remember the whole subject was the cause of many ruffled feathers at last year's runoffs. PLUS one of the added perks of the conversion is shedding 200lbs... we would have to add this back (probably then some). No, let FC deal with the recent addition of Zetec (probably a good thing, but we will see) before we really screw things up by adding yet another group of motors.
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
Redirect the Discussion
Rennie: You quoted the VD F1000 at $40,000. If the exchange rate were half way between what it is today and what it averaged over the last 10 years, then the VD would be closer to $35,000. I think that a US produced cars could hit the $35,000 mark with reasonable volume. That is tube frame. Obviously VD can have a car ready to go very shortly.
There are no examples of cars even close to that price ($35M) that have (1) composite tub and (2) will meet SCCA standards for safety. Again if we want an F3 style chassis then we will have to accept the increased cost.
Maybe a much better direction to go is to address the safety issue of tude frames. There are two areas that should be discussed: (1) side penetration and (2) front and rear impact protection. The current rules address these issues but maybe they should be up graded for new cars.
Side penetration: the current rules call for .060 6061 T6 aluminum or 2 layers of 5 oz. Kevlar. When vacumed bagged, two layers of Kevlar are only .016 to .020 thick. As a quick rule of thumb, Kevlar and aluminum in equal thicknesses will perform equally. Therefore make the requirement a single laminate of Kevlar .060 thick(6 to 8 layers). Further more have the protected area cover the driver front to back and bottom to the top of the chassis. And give some thought as to how we fasten the panels to the frame.
Front and rear crush boxes: We have a rule for front nose boxes. In recient years I have redesigned the nose boxes on my cars so that they fail progressively from the front. Most nose boxes will fail or separate at the mounting point, the front bulkhead. For all the potential safety of a Ralt RT40 carbon tub, I had a driver very seriously injured in an impact with a concrete barrier. The impact of the front wing and the barrier separated the nose box from the tub. The steering rack was then driven driven through tub and crushed the drivers left foot. Since then I have redesigned my nose boxes for both FF and FC. I attach the front wings to a sacraficial front subassembly so that the wing will separate without compromising the nose box. I have also reinforced the mounting area of the nose box so that it is the strongest segment.
I still have not built a rear crush box but I think it should be required. Crush boxes have the potential to protect both cars in a car to car accident as well as a car to solid object. May be we should consider having the same 31 sq. in. bumper at both ends of the car. The rear could be 8 in behind the end of the transmission and the front remain at 15.75 forward of the pedals. IRL has an interesting rule in that their front impact protection is define from the back of the seat.
I have had my cars involved in two accidents where the cars impacted guard rail posts head on. In both cases the posts had to be replaced. In both cases the damage to the frames was so minor that it did not require significant repair. One guard rail was at Mid Ohio and the other was at Gateway. What I built after those cars was way better.
I think that the tube frame will always be the least expensive approach. It above all has the lowest tooling cost but does require higher skilled labor to build. We are likely to get more US manufactures involved if we stick with tube frames. Finally most of the interest in a new class is for a lower cost alternative to FC which favors tube frames. I see the immediate market will for conversion components, especially bolt on kit. I think that new car sales will follow if we get the rules right. Most of us who can produce new cars will not see more that a few orders per year initially until it becomes clear who has the winner.
If we choose composite cars, you will not see much if any support from the manufactures who have supported SCCA club racing over the years. US built formula cars(FF and FC) may not have had the volume of the imported cars but we have stood toe to toe with the imports when it comes to competition for championships. SCCA has never been very supportive of the independent business who over the years have supplied members with products to go racing in the 3 most populace unsubsidized classes -- FV, FF, and FC.
And i thought I liked to read my own typing.... Jeez you guys are getting lost in rhetoric.
I just looked back at posts #1 and #2 of this thread. Looked good to me... then we added 185 more posts.
The only argument of substance that I've seen in 185+ posts that might alter the rule set out in either post #1 or #2 is that for the sake of safety it might be best to allow body width to be wider than current FC (not mandate it, just allow it).
The air inlet restrictor will keep performance down below FA standards. Don't mix it into the FC dilemma. Start as a regional only class. Build numbers. Get a national class the old fashioned way... earn it.
K.I.S.S.
Thank you Froggie, I think you speak for the majority of the racers that are considering this class. Just wish my monoque RT5 was included. But what the heck, I'll still be racing with the same guys. Just not for the same points. Also, considering safety, isn't an aluminum monoque supposedly safer than tube frame construction? I don't know, I'm just asking!
Scott Woodruff
83 RT5 Ralt/Scooteria Suzuki Formula S
(former) F440/F5/FF/FC/FA
65 FFR Cobra Roadster 4.6 DOHC
Amen Purple Frog
I fought and lost bood on the FC battle field in the '80s. I also went down this same road with Paul White among others about aluminum monocoques in those days. Same story, same truths.
Unfortunately the opposition is in a position of power. It will be their way or no way, I fear.
I think my interest is obvious, it is to participate but only if I believe in what we are doing. Most of you guys who might be interested in this class are coming from an FC point of view. I would like to think I am fighting for you guys.
One More Time
I can't let this go......
First....Correct me if I'm wrong Lee, but isn't your car a tube frame car???? I know you have a composite panel that bonds to the tube frame on the sides of the cockpit (I believe your term is semi-monocoque), but in order for you to be homologated, I'm sure it's considered a tube frame car. If you are saying it's a monocoque design, I'd like to see the FIA certification.
Second....I know you are getting deeper into the composites field with your announcement this morning on the DSR forum, so I believe I now know what your agenda is.
Third....I have a document here that shows our new chassis design (full 4130 tube frame) with a total torsional rigidity of 7,280ftlb/degree and an optional design using a carbon panel similar to your design at 6,755ftlb/degree. So we're not giving up on the tube frame quite yet.
Fourth....I think that the rules for this class should be set by the people who are going to participate in it, not by manufacturers or interested parties that have an agenda. And just to be clear...I do not have an agenda here....I will build a car for this class if it makes business sense to do so....regardless of the rules.
Fifth....I'm not approaching this deal as a car builder. Just a few short years ago I was running an old outdated 1990 FC car on a very small budget and trying to keep up with the new stuff. It was a struggle every time out and I had to get 10/10ths out of my car just to maybe make it on the podium. I understand FULLY what these guys are trying to do.
Last....Rules. I like the KISS analogy. And if I were in the market to enter this class....as a driver on a budget....here's what I would want:
Cars ould be FC-style conversions and purpose-built tube frame cars (like Speads, Gloria, etc.). Engine displacement should be limited to 1000cc and maybe some type of restrictor. Weight at 1000lb. Dimensions should allow the wider-style cars (but there should be some limit). I don't think there's any real advantage to the wide cars....in fact they may be at a disadvantage depending on the aero rules. Flat bottom rule with a diffuser.
If the thing takes off and the market demands change, look at allowing carbon-tubbed cars, less engine restriction, etc.
Good Luck Everybody.
Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.
Last edited by Matt Conrad; 02.16.06 at 1:01 PM. Reason: typo
Thank you Matt.
Can't agree more with the last few posts.
Our Honda 600 engines in Formula Honda in the UK had lockwire holes through major engine components (block to head etc) and if anyone protested a motor they could be sealed by the scruntiner (tech) and inspected. I would like to keep motors standard without any restrictor. Tube frames, standard motors and a little more open aero. Simple?
Forgive me if this has already been brought up, but why not do like the current FA rules and add xx lb. for performance advantages? Maybe you could satisfy both sides of the argument.
xxx lb. for tube frame. Add 50 or 75 lb. for aluminun monocoque and another 50 or 75 lb. for CF tub.
People could convert F2000 and FSV cars, and new builders could build any of those types of frames or tubs. The participants could decide if they want to go the inexpensive route or with the more expensive, safer (but not faster) modern tubs.
Racer Russ
Palm Coast, FL
HUZZAH!! Sean,Sean and Matt!!!!
Dave Craddock
Matt, my smart aleck comment about helmets and tube frames was meant to say - I just don't think any truely new class in formula/sports racer should exclude composite tubs. For reasons of both safety and market forces. If the SCCA promoted historic technology and banned current technology, the SCCA would be irrelevant as a path for young open wheel drivers, and irrelevant as a place to run cars the public are buying. I believe the SCCA is moving in the right directions, however.
Last edited by Lee Stohr; 02.17.06 at 1:28 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote