F1000 Rules in FASTRACK

[RobLav]

See link;

http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/06-7-fastrack.pdf

Page 22

23mm restrictor
sheet metal on tube frame OK
no aluminum monocoque
Bore, stroke, max valve lift, compression remains stock
No tunnels - from rear of front tires to front of rear tires
funky wording on entrants's designating 12 X 12 surface area
1000 lbs - add 25 lbs for FI


That is one of the best FASTRACKS's I've seen. A lot of good financial info too.

Makes we wonder we even have PRO Racing, nevermind Enterprizes. PRO's been taking a pretty good loss.

[formulasuper]

Will you F1000 guys let me run my RT5 Ralt/Busa with you if I have a minimum weight of 1150 lbs?

[emotepix]

Congrats to all involved. I just checked out the Fast Track and was very impressed. I think I'll be joining you from the bottom (older) end of the FC conversions in the mid future.
Well done all!

[S Lathrop]

Very good job for all who were involved.

As a chassis builder I can see only two areas that need more attention.
1. There should be some limit on stress bearing panels, probably the same as in
the FC/FF rules;
2. The sentence "No venturi tunnels are permitted....." is a problem area. What
is a venturi tunnel? If the car meets the restrictions in the rest of the
paragraph is it legal? Define the term "venturi tunel" so that it only takes
measuring tools to determine if it is legal.


Again GREAT JOB.

Steve

[carnut169]

Pages 22-24.

[R. Pare]

Looks OK for a first draft. Here's some of what I find that needs addressing:

C. Chassis

I would limit stress bearing panels to lateral only (bulkheads and floor pan only), as is current FF/FC requirements. The arguement against longitudinal stress bearing panels goes back to the arguement about chassis stiffness : I could build a car that uses a minimum of "tubes" - just enough to meet the requirements - with the main structure actually being 22(or lighter) ga pressed steel ( or heavier gauge alu, or even titanium) sheet, with the torsional stiffness doubling that of a traditional tube-only structure, and the attendant performance increase. All this would serve to do is substantially increase the costs if someone ever decided to take advantage of this type of construction.

If the thought behind allowing longitudinal stress bearing panels is driver safety, it would serve us better to increase the number of required plys of kevlar in the side panels. Converted cars can easily be brought up to spec just by the addition of more plys to the existing body panels.

Also, as currently presented, you have not stated any of the other desirable construction requirements (stress-bearing floor pan, boxing of control arm joints,pedal placement, support tube requirements, etc) past that in sections 17-20. I would highly suggest the adoption of the construction requirements as outlined in the FF rules (which current F2000's have to comply to also).

D. Bodywork and Airfoils

The restiction on venturi tunnels will not work as currently worded unless some sort of definition and measuring system is stated. However, I think we will all find that task rather difficult to make idiot proof, if not impossible, so instead I suggest that we just increase the required flat lower surface to the full width of the bodywork ( except for maybe an allowance of a 1 inch radius at the sides), and possibly increase the length to 36 inches. Simple, and it absolutely prevents any sort of tunnels.

You also have two sentences that conflict with each other. The first is "No point on the lower surface of the chassis may be below the plane determined by the reference surface......", with the second being "No part of the body or suspended part of the car shall extend more than 1 cm below the plane determined by the reference surface". Since the chassis is also a "suspended part", it cannot take advantage of the latter without being in conflict with the former. My suggestion is to get rid of any allowance for anything other than skid blocks to stick below the reference plane - there is a ton of stuff that I could do within that 1 cm that you do not want to know about!

PS: Your current wording also doesn't allow the rub blocks to protrude down past the reference plane either. Makes them kinda useless!

I would also suggest the adoption of the FF regs on bodywork - ducting, anti-intrusion, etc - whatever that is relevent but not covered in the diagram.

The diagram : Make sure that the "maximum width" definition clearly states that it refers to everything, not just the width of the rear tires as we all argued over earlier this year!

I. Transmission/Final Drive

Line three can easily be construed that reverse gears are not allowed, regardless of whether or not the trans was originally outfitted with one. I some how doubt that this is what you want - a race car without a reverse is one of the dumbest things I've seen yet!

I don't really know why air shifters, etc, should be allowed - this class is supposed to be a means of providing lesser-expensive cars to play with, and this sort of shifter setup I suspect is a LOT more expensive that that philosophy warrents.

Just what do the "F-1000 Specifications" ( after Section N ) refer to?( 2. Substantial support structure 3. Crushable structure. 4. Substantial structure ?????????????)

Over all, it's a start, but it still needs some massaging before the Comp Board gets it.

[planet6racing]

First, congratulations to all on this. I'm an ITA driver that's been wanting to get into formula cars for a while now and this is just the ticket. My letter to the CRB in support of this goes out tomorrow...

As for the air shifter/electric solenoid shifter, I'll admit that this is one thing that REALLY attracted me to this. Not because I can't shift, but because of the engineering challenge of it all. These have the potential to be mini F1 cars (hopefully with a mini-mini F1 budget!).

-------

Bill
Saturn SL2 - ITA #92

[John Mosteller]

Was there any engine testing with the 23 mm restrictor before the proposal was submitted and if so what is the peak power on one of the latest 1 liter motors like a 05 GSXR1000.

John