Rules proposal as of 8/8/06

[R. Pare]

OK. I decided to post this as a new thread, referenced in the title to the last revision that I have seen.

My apologies to the advisory committee if changes have been made since the time I recieved this (7/20/06).

I have reprinted the rules proposal as I recieved it. Any comments of mine are included just after the relevent section and printed in italics. The drawing is not reproduced.

This is going to be rather long, so have patience!




H.1. FORMULA 1000 PREPARATION RULES
Formula 1000 is a restricted class. Therefore, all allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T. Homologation is required for all cars.

A. Definition
A formula for purpose built, open-wheel, open cockpit racing cars. F1000 allows converted Formula Continental, Formula 2000, Formula Ford, and purpose-built motorcycle-powered tube frame chassis. Re-homologation as an F1000 is required for all converted cars.

B. Safety
F1000 cars must comply with GCR Sections 17, 18, 19, and 20. Additional safety requirements are addressed in sections C and D.

C. Chassis
1. The chassis shall be of tubular steel construction only. Composite construction (defined as carbon fiber, Kevlar, honeycomb or fiberglass) in a structural application is prohibited. Stress bearing panels are not permitted except as specifically allowed in these rules. Stress bearing panels are defined as sheet metal affixed to the frame by welding, bonding, rivets, bolts, or screws which have centers closer than 6 inches.

2. The soles of the driver’s feet shall not extend beyond the front edge of the wheel rims (in normal position; i.e., pedals not depressed) and shall remain behind the front bulkhead. The lower main frame rails shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) centimeters (9.84”) apart (inside dimension) from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop.

3. The area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the front roll hoop bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead shall incorporate one of the following:

a. Panel(s), minimum of either.060” heat-treated aluminum (6061-T6 or equivalent) or eighteen (18) gauge steel, attached outside of the main frame tubes.
b. Reinforced body - at minimum, consisting of a double layer, five (5) oz., bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame.

For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than six (6) inch centers (no stress-bearing panels). The material used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material.

4. A stress-bearing floor pan/undertray is permitted between the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. Composite or stabilized materials shall not be used for stress-bearing panels. The mountings for brake and clutch pedals and cylinders (front bulkhead), instruments, (front roll hoop bulkhead), and rear roll hoop bulkhead (behind the driver) may also be stress-bearing panels. No other stress-bearing panels are permitted. The firewall portion of the rear roll hoop bulkhead (panel) shall extend the full width of the cockpit. Forward facing air ducts may be installed for the purpose of delivering air directly to the engine area. Air duct openings may be located within the cockpit provided the firewall is extended to prevent flame and debris from reaching the driver. (Any shape may be used to form firewall extension.) All firewall inlets shall prohibit passage of flame and debris.

Stating that the floor pan is "permitted" rather than "required" (as it is currently), is NOT good from a safety standpoint, and a bad regression from current required standards. I assume that this is an oversight?
Also, the chassis rules make no mention of the "curvature" or "deviation" (I hate those terms!) of the floorpan. Currently, the cars cannot step the floor more than 1 inch, whereas this oversight in the proposal will allow full raised noses a la F1, etc, with the underside bodywork being the only thing that has to keep within the 1 inch limit. While this could be a lot of fun to play with as a designer, would allow production of more downforce, and would allow for 'sexier' looking cars, I'm not sure that we really want to open that can of worms.

5. Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels may be nonferrous, of any shape, and fastened to the frame in any manner.

6. No engine oil or water tubes are permitted within the cockpit.

7. It is not permitted to construct any suspension member in the form of an asymmetrical airfoil or to incorporate a spoiler in the construction of any suspension member. Symmetrical streamlining of suspension members is permitted.

The reason for the "horizontal axis" requirement as stated in current rules is that it forces the airfoil tubing major axis to be oriented pretty much horizontal to the ground, regardless of whether or not the airflow at the tube is actually up, down, or sideways. I understand what you are trying to do with this wording, however, as you have written it, I believe I could successfully win an argument for the use of a section of airfoil tubing tilted so that it produces downforce as all I would have to do is produce some bogus airflow study showing that the airflow in the area of the tube is along the symmetrical axis of the tube (and thereby "streamlined" as concerns the airflow, which is how it is worded), when it reality it isn't and you cannot prove otherwise. Reverting to the currently accepted "horizontal" wording will help eliminate this sort of future headache!

D. Bodywork and Airfoils

1. See table of dimensions. (Airfoils are a requirement for this class.) Forward-facing roll bar/roll cage bracing and required padding will not be considered in the cockpit opening dimensions shown in the table.

2. The driver’s seat shall be capable of being entered without the manipulation or removal of any part or panel, except the steering wheel and/or driver’s head surround (horse collar) structure.

3. Fuel filler necks, caps, or lids shall not protrude beyond the bodywork of the car.

4. Fuel cell air vents shall be located at least 25cm (9.84 inches) to the rear of the cockpit. A safety fuel cell is required per GCR Section 19.

5. Carbon fiber is prohibited in any external panels including crushable structures, or any panels licked by the airstream (e.g., radiator ducting or engine air inlet). Carbon fiber may be used in internal panels and components (e.g., instrument panel, radio boxes) unless otherwise restricted.

6. The entrant shall designate a flat rectangular reference area with minimum dimensions of 12 inches by 12 inches. This reference area is located on the lower surface of the chassis (the surface licked by the air stream) between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire. The center of the reference area must be no more than three (3) inches from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.

For the full width of the body, between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire, no point on the lower surface of the chassis (does this mean that you will not allow an undertray that covers over the underside of the chassis?) (the surface licked by the air stream) shall be more than 2.54cm (1 inch) above the plane determined by the reference area designated by the entrant and on a line perpendicular to that reference plane. No point on the lower surface of the chassis may be below the plane determined by the reference surface on a line perpendicular to that plane, except as specifically permitted herein. Compliance with these requirements shall be accomplished by placing a straight edge on the reference surface designated by the entrant and verifying that the requirements are met. A maximum of four (4) one (1) inch by four (4) inch rub blocks are allowed anywhere on the lower surface of the chassis, and may extend below the reference plane.

Reference to only the lower surface of the "chassis" means that ONLY THE CHASSIS is subject to this rule! Not good! This means that everything else on the underside is free!

7. Venturi sections are not permitted on the lower surface of the car between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire.

Define what a venturi is or this rule is as useless and open to bad interpretations just as the 'no venturi tunnel' rule is now in FF & FC! Any engineer or designer worth his salt will just shake his head at this rule as it is written!

In explanation: For any particular shape to truly be a 'venturi' in the definition that most club people think of, it has to pass three tests :

1 - It has to be shaped as a constriction.

2 - It has to be shaped such that it would at least seemingly create a pressure drop.

3 - It actually has to create a pressure drop.

If any one of these three tests can be shown to be in doubt, any protests against a particular shape will be lost.

Conversely, I can successfully argue (and be scientifically accurate in all respects) that a totally flat bottom with a radius at the leading edge is a venturi. It will pass all three tests. Heck, a flat bottom without a leading edge radius will pass the tests.

In that case, not a single current car is legal!

Not defining a feature that you are banning is the lazy way out.


8. Diffusers are permitted behind the front of the rear tires.

Not really sure what this means. The current FC rules allow the diffuser to start wherever you want in front of the rear tire leading edge, but it can only rise the 1 inch allowed at the leading edge of the rear tire. This wording would seem to restrict the START of the diffuser to be no more forward than the rear tire leading edge. If so, no current diffusers would be legal.

9. Movable aerodynamic devices, including aerodynamic skirts, are prohibited.

Will wear strips that stick just slightly ( a few thou) below the reference plane be deemed illegal? It might be advisable to allow rubbing strips at the outer edges of the sidepods to stick down a tiny bit, say, no more than .050" While this is not absolutely necessary, it would make sidepod bottom maintenance issues a lot easier.

What about:

1 - Crushable structures - no mention as yet.
2 - No air ducting for downforce with all air flowing thru heat exchangers, etc.

?????????????????????????????????????

E. Engines
1. Motorcycle-based 4 cycle up to 1005cc.
2. Bore, stroke, compression ratio and maximum camshaft lift must remain stock. The competitor must possess an original factory manual for the engine to allow compliance verification.
3. The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed. Devices that modify inputs to the ECU (e.g., Power Commander) may be used. Stand alone after market ECUs are not permitted.
4. Turbochargers and superchargers are prohibited.
5. Carburetion and fuel injection are unrestricted.
6. The exhaust system and exhaust manifold are unrestricted, within SCCA safety regulations.
7. The lubrication system is unrestricted; a dry sump system is permitted. What are the thoughts on lubricants restrictions? If the most liberal interpretation of this rule is used, you can coat/impregnate any engine parts with slick films, teflon, DLC, etc, as long as they are classified as a lubricant (which they are).
8. Oil coolers are unrestricted.
9. Radiators and water pump are unrestricted. Radiators, if housed in or incorporating a cowl air-scoop deflector, shall comply with body regulations.

F. Single Inlet Restrictors
The use of a GCR-compliant Single Inlet Restrictor is mandatory. The maximum inside diameter of the Single Inlet Restrictor shall be 23.0 mm.

What material is required? If I use a high thermal expansion material that can grow 1mm in ID at operating temp (with a little help from a heating coil!), yet still be under the 23mm limit at say, 95 degrees F, am I illegal? And yes, there are such materials available! And no, I'm not going to tell you where you can get them!

G. Fuel system
The fuel system is unrestricted within the following limitations:
1. Fuel per GCR Section 17.4
2. Fuel Cell Vents: Fuel tank air vents shall be located at least 10 inches to the rear of the cockpit.
3. Fuel Filler Neck: Fuel filler necks, caps, or lids shall not protrude beyond the bodywork of the car.
4. Fuel cell shall comply with Section 19.
5. Fuel capacity: maximum 10.83 gallons.

H. Electrical System
The electrical system is unrestricted within the following limitations:

1. Self-Starter: Cars shall be equipped with an on-board self-starter and an on-board power supply controlled by the driver while in a normal driving position.
2. Lights: a tail light is required per GCR Section 17.19


I. Transmission/Final Drive
1. Rear wheel drive only is permitted.
2. The final drive ratio is unrestricted.
3. Cars may use sequentially shifted motorcycle transmissions. Reverse gear is not required.
4. All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Mechanical gear shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters air-shifters and similar devices are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are prohibited.

What is a "similar devise?

J. Suspension
1. All suspension components shall be of steel or ferrous material, with the exception of hubs, hub adaptors, hub carriers, bell cranks, pivot blocks, bearings and bushes, spring caps, abutment nuts, anti-roll bar links, shock absorber caps, and nuts which may be aluminum alloy.
2. Springs: steel only.
3. Shock absorbers: Steel or aluminum alloy body.
4. Control arms and all associated items that attach directly to the chassis members shall be boxed in or captured to prevent intrusion into the cockpit.
5. Front A-arms shall be equipped with anti-intrusion bars to limit intrusion into the cockpit.

K. Brakes
Unrestricted, except:
1. All pistons in a given caliper must be of the same size. Calipers must be ferrous or aluminum alloy.
2. Brake rotors are restricted to ferrous material.

L. Steering
Unrestricted. [i]Might it be worth it to look at restricting it to the front wheels?[i/]

M. Wheels and Tires
Thirteen (13) inch diameter wheels with a maximum rim width of ten (10) inches are the only wheel sizes permitted. Material is unrestricted providing it is metal.

I am not in favor of the large wheels - they will only serve to increase the performance levels of braking and cornering and can possibly be incompatible with current car suspensions (both the geometry and physical layout for clearances, steering lock, front wing clearance, etc.) Combined with the wide body proposal, they will push the safety envelope of tube frames.

What are the thoughts on fans and fairings? Current FF rules don't allow them, FC does. Personally, I know what can be done for performance gains with both, and don't really want to have to go there! It would probably be best to not allow them.

N. Minimum weight
Minimum weight is 1000 lbs.

F-1000 Dimensions

1. Safety roll-over bar.
2. Front track
3. Rear track
4. Wheelbase Fig 4 refers to "substantial structure", which disappeared from the rules a couple of decades ago! Reference should be changed to 7 to match the drawing.

If you wish, I can draw up a new diagram specifically for F1000 use.

Maximum height is measured with the driver aboard.
Maximum height excludes safety rollover bar on which there is no maximum height.


Ok, that's more than enough for everyone to digest right now. Most likely I've missed something, and if I have and I find it, I'll add it in.

It might not be a bad idea for Dave Gomberg to re-post the rules in entirety when and if he changes the proposal. We can all then proof-read the latest version.

[Lee Stohr]

'the firewall portion of the rear roll hoop bulkhead shall extend the full width of the cockpit'


Richard, this has been around forever, but I just got to looking at it again, and wondered what does it mean ? You could infer that the rear roll hoop bulkhead must be the same width as the widest point of the cockpit, couldn't you ? If so, that would make a lot of cars illegal. Or does it mean the firewall panel of the rear hoop bulkhead must be as wide as the widest point of the cockpit, same problem.

[Mike B]

5. Carbon fiber is prohibited in any external panels including crushable structures, or any panels licked by the airstream (e.g., radiator ducting or engine air inlet). Carbon fiber may be used in internal panels and components (e.g., instrument panel, radio boxes) unless otherwise restricted.

Are airfoils considered "external panels"? What about diffusers? This would seem to outlaw most "useful" uses of carbon fiber. Is that what everyone wants?

[Art Smith]

F1000 specific figure and table provided to CRB


where is the current/evolving draft found?



Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[RobLav]

1) I can also make the argument that Lee's spar is illegal because it is structurally part of the chassis and it is not tube frame. They are stress bearing panels.

2) We need to allow for stress bearing floors behind the firewall - like in current FC - the floor under the engine.

Given numbers 1 and 2 above, I propose that the rules state chassis construction is free aft of the firewall, but it must be metal (or steel or aluminum only).

With the rules as currently written, I would build the widest sidepods I could with the lowest height and duct some air for the heat exchangers, leaving the rest completely open. The rear edge of those sidepods would curve up at about a 7 degree angle until they reached the 1" max deviation rule. The diffusor would be as wide as those sidepods and curve up from the forward edge of the rear wheels, as is current FC practice.

We will probably not need a limited slip, as Richard says. It will rob some HP. In my RF96, I experienced inner wheel spin at NHIS turn three / four going up the hill and at LRP on the uphill crest. This has not occured yet in my RF99. These cars will have more downforce.

We should dump the entire venturi wording and stick to the measurements requirement.

[Art Smith]

in the interests of keeping the discussion lively, I suggest folks with "spars" will argue "brackets" are unrestricted. to push the point, I see nothing in the draft rules Richard referenced that precludes a "Mike Sauce like" composite engine bracket(s) that bolts to the structure at the plane of the main roll hoop......................

5. Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels may be nonferrous, of any shape, and fastened to the frame in any manner.

I whole heartedly support Rob's suggestion:

We should dump the entire venturi wording and stick to the measurements requirement.


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[R. Pare]

Lee:

My take on the firewall wording has always been that it can extend past the perimiter of the main hoop tubes because of the "extension" caveat. Also, the wording about bulkheads is that they are permitted, not required, hence there are no limitations as to whether or not a non-stressed "flap" can extend past the mounting points. This wording is almost (but not quite) the same as it is stated in the FF rules, so I see no reason for someone to interpret it differenty. The wording can be better, I agree, but then, I'm not the guy writing the proposal!

Mike:

As the rules are written, the use of carbon is not permitted in any of those items (yes, an airfoil is an external panel)- exactly the same as it currently is in FF & FC. It could be worded to directly address wings instead of the generic "external panels" if there is any chance of confusion, I agree. I personally do not want to see carbon become legal because of the expense, but that is not my decision to make. I can only advise.

Art:

The current draft CANNOT be found by the public at this time - it seems that someone wants to keep it secret for some reason. I now have someone pissed at me for publishing this draft! Their problem, not mine - this is not supposed to be the Secret Car Club of America.

Rob:

You would lose that arguement in 2 nanoseconds. As I stated before, the spar is totally legal. There is no requirement in any class that I know of for the frame to go to the end of the car, nor that the suspension, gearbox, etc, has to be attached directly to the frame. If that were the case, not a single car built after the mid '80's would be legal. The use of alu parts such as bellhousings and gearboxes can also be easily argued (and have been successfully) to fit within the "bracket" allowances. Mike Sauce's aluminium engine side frames also easily fit within the "bracket" allowance.

If any current FF or FC cars are stressing the floorpan behind the main hoop, they are illegal - the rules for FF/FC construction specifically state that the floorpan is to be stressed ONLY from the front bulkhead to the rear (main hoop) bulkhead. I personally see no need to allow the floor under the engine to be stressed.

As to the undersides: defining what a venturi is or is not will be almost impossible to get right. Even if my original measurement proposal were to be implemented, a curved underside that acts as a venturi would be legal, as long as it fits within the measurement limits. While this could make for all sorts of fun, I'm not sure that we really want this. The only way I can see at the moment to severely limit the production of downforce off of the bottom of the cars is to go to the mandatory stepped bottom stuff. However, doing that would make conversions a lot more expensive as all-new sidepods will be necessary to raise the floor and still give enough inside height for adequate radiator area.

The effects of any venturies formed could be reduced by not allowing the undersides to step or slope back down once they have stepped or sloped up when measure laterally starting from the car center towards to outer body width. The effect would be to allow a lot of air intrusion from the outside airflow to the low pressure throat of the venturi. Exactly how much that would mitigate the venturi effect I do not know.

But the practice the Club has of banning something that is undefined has GOT TO STOP!

There is one item that I did not address, as it is seen only in the drawing. It is a minimum height requirement for the sidepods, for which I see no problem, but it doesn't state where that height measurement is to be taken, or, if sidepod winglets and air deflectors, vortex generators, etc, attached to the side of the side pods are included. I can see that there could be some benefit to stating that the sidepod outer walls had to be of a certain height at their widest point, but this dimension in the drawing at the moment is not defined.

[RobLav]

"The use of alu parts such as bellhousings and gearboxes can also be easily argued (and have been successfully) to fit within the "bracket" allowances."

How in God's name can we call those "brackets"?

"If any current FF or FC cars are stressing the floorpan behind the main hoop, they are illegal - the rules for FF/FC construction specifically state that the floorpan is to be stressed ONLY from the front bulkhead to the rear (main hoop) bulkhead. I personally see no need to allow the floor under the engine to be stressed."

Richard, I respect you and your opinions, but this is just plain wrong. Every single Van Diemen I've seen (and I have 2) has a stressed floorpan that extends to the bell. The floor, either stainless or aluminum, is bonded and riveted to the square tubing all the way to that bell. It clearly makes for a stronger and stiffer chassis in a highly stressed area.

We are getting into the argument similar to "Well this is always the way it's been, so it must continue to be that way." Current FC practice has the floor stressed to the bell, and you believe it is illegal, whereas you believe the current "bracket" definition is legal because it is current practice... There is a mismatch here.

This is why I strongly recommend that the structure aft of the firewall be free, but it must be made of aluminum and/or steel. This simplifies the rules and eliminates some interpretation.

[R. Pare]

Robert:

Sorry, but the rule explicitly state that the stressed floorpan shall be from the front bulkhead to the main hoop bulkhead, that the front bulkhead, dash bulkhead, and main hoop bulkhead may be stressed, and that NO OTHER stress bearing panels are permitted. Within that "no other" caveat, the floor pan under the engine would be included - it is clearly behind the rear main hoop bulkhead.

The fact that VD has gotten away with it all these years has no bearing on what the rules state and mean. I haven't bothered to protest as I don't really care that they've done that.

The rules also state that brackets to mount the engine, transmission, suspension, etc, can be non-ferrous, any shape, and fastened to the frame in any manner. The interpretation that this allows the engine, bellhousing and transmission to be stressed structures goes back to at least 1978.

Sorry!

[Art Smith]

since it looks like this draft excludes monoque and semi-monoque frames AND requires lateral intrusion protection between only the front and main hoops, I'd recommend adding 0.020" 6-4 Titanium sheet as an approved method of protection. any number of TV programs have said the cockpit of the A-10 WhartHog is protected with titanium armor so the protection per pound per cubic inch is clearly attractive compared to the other approved methods. I'd also recommend increasing the requirement for lateral intrusion protection to: from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. legs, knees, ankles, and feet are important too and closer to the source of the problems than the torso................


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net


3. The area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the front roll hoop bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead shall incorporate one of the following:

a. Panel(s), minimum of either.060” heat-treated aluminum (6061-T6 or equivalent) or eighteen (18) gauge steel, attached outside of the main frame tubes.
b. Reinforced body - at minimum, consisting of a double layer, five (5) oz., bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame.

For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than six (6) inch centers (no stress-bearing panels). The material used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material.

[RobLav]

Richard,

I understand your point...

Here is the FC chassis rule as currently written:

"The chassis shall be of tubular steel construction with no
stress-bearing panels except bulkhead and undertray; curvature
of the undertray shall not exceed 2.54cm (1 inch). Monocoque
chassis construction is prohibited. Stress bearing panels are
defined as: sheet metal affixed to the frame by welding, bonding,
rivets, bolts, or screws which have centers closer than 15.24cm
(6 inches). Body panels cannot be utilized as stress bearing
panels, except as required for 1986 construction rules. The use
of composite materials using carbon and/or Kevlar reinforcement
is prohibited."

The way I read this, the undertray extends to the bell in the Van Diemens and does not end at the firewall.


Our F1000 rules should, at a minimum, allow the same stressed undertray to extend as far back as the designer wishes. In the version I last read, the rules did not allow that, and I still prefer the wording that provides free structure aft of the firewall (aluminum or steel). It would be nice to see the designs that come from this freedom.

[R. Pare]

Robert:

In case you've forgotten, the FCs are also regulated by the FF chassis and bodywork rules, except where expressly pointed out in the FC section. There is nothing in the FC section that superceeds the regulations stated in the FF rules, therefore the bellypan/floorpan/whatever other word they want to use, is limited to being a stressed panel from the front bulkhead to the main hoop bulkhead, but not beyond (behind) the main hoop bulkhead.

[David Ferguson]

Richard,

I think you're wrong on this one. The wording in section D.6.d says that a stressed undertray is required between the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. I do not believe it is limited to just this area. Otherwise you would find words like "limited to", or "is allowed only between".

The defintion of undertray is sufficiently broad as to incorporate an undertray that extends further aft: "Undertray (Belly Pan) - An attachment to the underside of a car intended
to smooth airflow and/or to offer driver protection in this region of the
car."

[R. Pare]

I agree that the wording used is very poor and can be confusing. It really should be re-written.

However, the rules also state (for just about every class) that what is written is all that is allowed, with no exceptions. This statement has always meant that if, as in this case, an envelope is described (front roll bulkhead to rear roll hoop bulkhead), then that envelope is the hard limit, especially when it is also stated that no other panels can be stressed.

The "allowable modifications" statement has also been deemed to limit what can be done in undefined areas - ie - if there is not a rule saying that you can do something in a particular area, then you are not free to do whatever you may wish. Of course, the problem with this as a designer is figuring out what won't get squawked about and what will! Again, poor wording.

The limiting of the stressed bellypan to that area has never meant that an undertray/floorpan/bellypan cannot be (or is required to be) put under the motor - that is actually expressly stated in the bodywork rules. That allowance of being able to put a pan under the engine, however, has no caveat stating that it can also be one of the stressed panels, which it would need to superceed the previously stated hard limits.

D.6. also expressly states that the following rules (D.6 thru D7h) are required for F2000, which squarely put the limits of the stressed floorpan under the jurisdiction of what is stated there. What history has forgotten is that the F2000 rules were expressly written to keep the same construction as required for FF, with the reason being that it would make it easier for the constructors and cheaper for the competitors, and that the only "additions" would be explicitly stated in the F2000 section. Nothing is stated in the FC section that explicitly overrides the FF requirements as regards the stressable area of the floor.

A further example of how you could run afoul of the "additional modifications" rule would be to use the starter motor as an additional motive force supply while out on the track. The rules may state that "all electrical components are free", but that does not mean that you can use them to supply additional motive power or to electrolize water for a fuel boost, etc.!

[Rennie Clayton]

After a judicious bit of RTFM, it seems to me the 1986 rules are fairly clear on this point. From the FF rules, with emphasis added:

A stress-bearing floor pan/undertray, minimum of .060” heat treated aluminum or eighteen (18) gauge steel, is required from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. Its curvature shall not exceed one inch.

Sheet materials attached to the frame by welding, bonding, or by rivets or threaded fasteners which are located closer than six (6) inch centers, are defined as stress-bearing panels. Composite or stabilized materials shall not be used for stress-bearing panels. The mountings for brake and clutch pedals and cylinders (front bulkhead), instruments, (front roll hoop bulkhead), and rear roll hoop bulkhead (behind the driver) may also be stress-bearing panels. No other stress-bearing panels are permitted.

Note that last sentence. Now here's a snippet from the FC rules:

The chassis shall be of tubular steel construction with no stress-bearing panels except bulkhead and undertray; curvature of the undertray shall not exceed 2.54cm (1 inch). Monocoque chassis construction is prohibited. Stress bearing panels are defined as: sheet metal affixed to the frame by welding, bonding, rivets, bolts, or screws which have centers closer than 15.24cm (6 inches). Body panels cannot be utilized as stress bearing panels, except as required for 1986 construction rules. The use of composite materials using carbon and/or Kevlar reinforcement is prohibited.

Of course, none of this solves the obvious problem: FF and FC rules are a rats nest. All good fun, I suppose.

Cheers,
Rennie

[R. Pare]

Yea, the rules are a mess!

All this shows is that to understand what the rules mean you have to understand both the history of the rule and the sometimes convoluted way that seemingly disparate requirements are tied together. Unfortunately, the end result is that the meaning of the rules change over a period of time with changing personnell, and that rules changes, when written by those who do not know all that stuff, have a tendancy to make things even worse!

Anyway, what you guys need to get done quickly here is to get the corrections/additions that you want to see, and for someone to get it submitted to the CRB. That someone will have to be someone besides myself as I am currently personna non grata on this subject with the advisory board! Oh well!

The CRB meeting is in what, 1 1/2 weeks?

[John Robinson II]

Richard & Rennie,
AS I interpert the rule, the floor pan has to extend from the roll hoop to front bulkhead, it does not have to end there. Therefore, you could extend the floor pan as a stressed panel to back of the car. The only other panels that can be stress bearing are the front and rear bulkheads. Am I missing something here?

John

[R. Pare]

Yes, the panel can extend past the main roll bar, but the limits as to what area can be a stressed panel are given in the FF chassis rules as "from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead". The useage of "from" and "to" are pretty clear as being the limits. Nothing in the FC section is given that would extend those expressed limits.

It would obviously be clearer if it said "between" or "limited to", but what it is is what we have to work with!

Now, is someone else going to pick the ball on these rules "fixes" and get them submitted?

[RobLav]

Richard,
We seem to be focusing discussion on the FC rules, which has some validity because they were the basis for the F1000 rules in our committee. But the focus has to be on what we want / believe to be a good set of F1000 rules for us to work with.

Your experience with how the FF rules were used as a basis for FC is way beyond my time. I've always read the FC rules as independent of the FF rules, hence my arguments - like the "bracketry" and stressed floor pan. So, to me, the real point of all this, and our forthcoming rules, is to make them simple and effective and as unambiguous as we can.

I'll put the dot on my head and write something to the CRB if we can agree to what we want to say. From my experience over the past few months in dealing with this, I frankly doubt we can. We have to focus not on agreeing or disagreeing, but on what we can live with.

So... I'll give it a go. Here is a partial list of what I can live with: (feel free to add / alter wording - you won't damage my ego)

H.1. FORMULA 1000 PREPARATION RULES
Formula 1000 is a restricted class. Therefore, all allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T. Homologation is required for all cars.

A new car will not have any modifications, changes, or additions... So a new car builder is not restricted by this rule?

A. Definition
A formula for purpose built, open-wheel, open cockpit racing cars. F1000 allows converted Formula Continental, Formula 2000, Formula Ford, and purpose-built motorcycle-powered tube frame chassis. Re-homologation as an F1000 is required for all converted cars.

B. Safety
F1000 cars must comply with GCR Sections 17, 18, 19, and 20. Additional safety requirements are addressed in sections C and D.

C. Chassis
1. The chassis shall be of tubular steel construction only. Composite construction (defined as carbon fiber, Kevlar, honeycomb or fiberglass) in a structural application is prohibited. Stress bearing panels are not permitted except as specifically allowed in these rules. Stress bearing panels are defined as sheet metal affixed to the frame by welding, bonding, rivets, bolts, or screws which have centers closer than 6 inches.


I'd prefer this state that the chassis shall be tubular steel construction between the front bulkhead and the rear roll hoop bulkhead and that a stressed floor is required between those bulkheads. I'd also like, to keep it simple and unambiguous, that the chassis be free aft of the rear roll hoop bulkhead.

2. The soles of the driver’s feet shall not extend beyond the front edge of the wheel rims (in normal position; i.e., pedals not depressed) and shall remain behind the front bulkhead. The lower main frame rails shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) centimeters (9.84”) apart (inside dimension) from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop.

3. The area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the front roll hoop bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead shall incorporate one of the following:

a. Panel(s), minimum of either.060” heat-treated aluminum (6061-T6 or equivalent) or eighteen (18) gauge steel, attached outside of the main frame tubes.
b. Reinforced body - at minimum, consisting of a double layer, five (5) oz., bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame.

Titanium was mentioned here in a thread. I find that expensive, but what do others think?

For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than six (6) inch centers (no stress-bearing panels). The material used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material.

4. A stress-bearing floor pan/undertray is permitted (recommend required) between the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. Composite or stabilized materials shall not be used for stress-bearing panels. The mountings for brake and clutch pedals and cylinders (front bulkhead), instruments, (front roll hoop bulkhead), and rear roll hoop bulkhead (behind the driver) may also be stress-bearing panels. No other stress-bearing panels are permitted (between the front bulkhead and the rear roll hoop bulkhead) . The firewall portion of the rear roll hoop bulkhead (panel) shall extend the full width of the cockpit. Forward facing air ducts may be installed for the purpose of delivering air directly to the engine area. Air duct openings may be located within the cockpit provided the firewall is extended to prevent flame and debris from reaching the driver. (Any shape may be used to form firewall extension.) All firewall inlets shall prohibit passage of flame and debris.

Stating that the floor pan is "permitted" rather than "required" (as it is currently), is NOT good from a safety standpoint, and a bad regression from current required standards. I assume that this is an oversight?
Also, the chassis rules make no mention of the "curvature" or "deviation" (I hate those terms!) of the floorpan. Currently, the cars cannot step the floor more than 1 inch, whereas this oversight in the proposal will allow full raised noses a la F1, etc, with the underside bodywork being the only thing that has to keep within the 1 inch limit. While this could be a lot of fun to play with as a designer, would allow production of more downforce, and would allow for 'sexier' looking cars, I'm not sure that we really want to open that can of worms.

The entire bottom of the car, between the rear of the front tires and the front of the rear tires, must be a flat plane which does not deviate more than 1 inch. (Or better words to that effect)

5. Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels may be nonferrous, of any shape, and fastened to the frame in any manner.

6. No engine oil or water tubes are permitted within the cockpit.

7. It is not permitted to construct any suspension member in the form of an asymmetrical airfoil or to incorporate a spoiler in the construction of any suspension member. Symmetrical streamlining of suspension members is permitted.

The reason for the "horizontal axis" requirement as stated in current rules is that it forces the airfoil tubing major axis to be oriented pretty much horizontal to the ground, regardless of whether or not the airflow at the tube is actually up, down, or sideways. I understand what you are trying to do with this wording, however, as you have written it, I believe I could successfully win an argument for the use of a section of airfoil tubing tilted so that it produces downforce as all I would have to do is produce some bogus airflow study showing that the airflow in the area of the tube is along the symmetrical axis of the tube (and thereby "streamlined" as concerns the airflow, which is how it is worded), when it reality it isn't and you cannot prove otherwise. Reverting to the currently accepted "horizontal" wording will help eliminate this sort of future headache!

I don't care how this is worded as long as I can use the normal 4130 streamline tubing. Why don't we simply say it must be round, elliptical,or streamline tubing?

D. Bodywork and Airfoils

1. See table of dimensions. (Airfoils are a requirement for this class.) Forward-facing roll bar/roll cage bracing and required padding will not be considered in the cockpit opening dimensions shown in the table.

2. The driver’s seat shall be capable of being entered without the manipulation or removal of any part or panel, except the steering wheel and/or driver’s head surround (horse collar) structure.

3. Fuel filler necks, caps, or lids shall not protrude beyond the bodywork of the car.

4. Fuel cell air vents shall be located at least 25cm (9.84 inches) to the rear of the cockpit. A safety fuel cell is required per GCR Section 19.

5. Carbon fiber is prohibited in any external panels including crushable structures, or any panels licked by the airstream (e.g., radiator ducting or engine air inlet). Carbon fiber may be used in internal panels and components (e.g., instrument panel, radio boxes) unless otherwise restricted.

6. The entrant shall designate a flat rectangular reference area with minimum dimensions of 12 inches by 12 inches. This reference area is located on the lower surface of the chassis (the surface licked by the air stream) between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire. The center of the reference area must be no more than three (3) inches from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.

For the full width of the body, between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire, no point on the lower surface of the chassis (use the word "car" - not chassis) (does this mean that you will not allow an undertray that covers over the underside of the chassis?) (the surface licked by the air stream) shall be more than 2.54cm (1 inch) above the plane determined by the reference area designated by the entrant and on a line perpendicular to that reference plane. No point on the lower surface of the chassis may be below the plane determined by the reference surface on a line perpendicular to that plane, except as specifically permitted herein. Compliance with these requirements shall be accomplished by placing a straight edge on the reference surface designated by the entrant and verifying that the requirements are met. A maximum of four (4) one (1) inch by four (4) inch rub blocks are allowed anywhere on the lower surface of the chassis, and may extend below the reference plane.

Reference to only the lower surface of the "chassis" means that ONLY THE CHASSIS is subject to this rule! Not good! This means that everything else on the underside is free!

7. Venturi sections are not permitted on the lower surface of the car between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire.

Just simply dump this rule and keep the measurement requirement.

Define what a venturi is or this rule is as useless and open to bad interpretations just as the 'no venturi tunnel' rule is now in FF & FC! Any engineer or designer worth his salt will just shake his head at this rule as it is written!

In explanation: For any particular shape to truly be a 'venturi' in the definition that most club people think of, it has to pass three tests :

1 - It has to be shaped as a constriction.

2 - It has to be shaped such that it would at least seemingly create a pressure drop.

3 - It actually has to create a pressure drop.

If any one of these three tests can be shown to be in doubt, any protests against a particular shape will be lost.

Conversely, I can successfully argue (and be scientifically accurate in all respects) that a totally flat bottom with a radius at the leading edge is a venturi. It will pass all three tests. Heck, a flat bottom without a leading edge radius will pass the tests.

In that case, not a single current car is legal!

Not defining a feature that you are banning is the lazy way out.


8. Diffusers are permitted behind the front of the rear tires.

Recommend dump this entirely. Not needed. Let the designer figure out how to work around the relatively flat area under the car between the front and rear tires.

Not really sure what this means. The current FC rules allow the diffuser to start wherever you want in front of the rear tire leading edge, but it can only rise the 1 inch allowed at the leading edge of the rear tire. This wording would seem to restrict the START of the diffuser to be no more forward than the rear tire leading edge. If so, no current diffusers would be legal.

9. Movable aerodynamic devices, including aerodynamic skirts, are prohibited.

Will wear strips that stick just slightly ( a few thou) below the reference plane be deemed illegal? It might be advisable to allow rubbing strips at the outer edges of the sidepods to stick down a tiny bit, say, no more than .050" While this is not absolutely necessary, it would make sidepod bottom maintenance issues a lot easier.

The rules already mentioned this sort of thing. Nothing below the designated plane except for specific sized rub blocks.

What about:

1 - Crushable structures - no mention as yet. - This needs added somewhere.
2 - No air ducting for downforce with all air flowing thru heat exchangers, etc. This needs added somewhere.

?????????????????????????????????????

E. Engines
1. Motorcycle-based 4 cycle up to 1005cc.

Why 1005 cc? Engine bore and stroke must remain stock. They are all less than 1000cc.

Engines must be from a production based motorcycle in which at least 1000 units were produced in a given model year.

2. Bore, stroke, compression ratio and maximum camshaft lift must remain stock. The competitor must possess an original factory manual for the engine to allow compliance verification.
3. The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed. Devices that modify inputs to the ECU (e.g., Power Commander) may be used. Stand alone after market ECUs are not permitted.
4. Turbochargers and superchargers are prohibited.
5. Carburetion and fuel injection are unrestricted.
No mention of airbox. I assume this will be free?

6. The exhaust system and exhaust manifold are unrestricted, within SCCA safety and sound regulations.
7. The lubrication system is unrestricted; a dry sump system is permitted. What are the thoughts on lubricants restrictions? If the most liberal interpretation of this rule is used, you can coat/impregnate any engine parts with slick films, teflon, DLC, etc, as long as they are classified as a lubricant (which they are).

Here we go again with this SIR thing. I'd prefer no SIR with engines that must remain completely stock (except for exhaust, Power Commander, and wet or dry sump). I don't think we want to allow these coatings with the SIR.

8. Oil coolers are unrestricted.
9. Radiators and water pump are unrestricted. Radiators, if housed in or incorporating a cowl air-scoop deflector, shall comply with body regulations.

F. Single Inlet Restrictors
The use of a GCR-compliant Single Inlet Restrictor is mandatory. The maximum inside diameter of the Single Inlet Restrictor shall be 23.0 mm.

According to my knowledge and calculations, this is too small. It will limit the HP of a stock engine 2005 Suzuki GSXR-1000. I wanted to see F1000 as 1000 lbs, 1000cc, and 1 inch restrictor (if we used it at all).

What material is required? If I use a high thermal expansion material that can grow 1mm in ID at operating temp (with a little help from a heating coil!), yet still be under the 23mm limit at say, 95 degrees F, am I illegal? And yes, there are such materials available! And no, I'm not going to tell you where you can get them!

The material must be specified.

G. Fuel system
The fuel system is unrestricted within the following limitations:
1. Fuel per GCR Section 17.4
2. Fuel Cell Vents: Fuel tank air vents shall be located at least 10 inches to the rear of the cockpit.
3. Fuel Filler Neck: Fuel filler necks, caps, or lids shall not protrude beyond the bodywork of the car.
4. Fuel cell shall comply with Section 19.
5. Fuel capacity: maximum 10.83 gallons.

H. Electrical System
The electrical system is unrestricted within the following limitations:

Does this mean we can put a switch on the brake system to turn on the alternator on FI engines? And leave if off when the brakes are not used?

1. Self-Starter: Cars shall be equipped with an on-board self-starter and an on-board power supply controlled by the driver while in a normal driving position.
2. Lights: a tail light is required per GCR Section 17.19

Is this the rain light?


I. Transmission/Final Drive
1. Rear wheel drive only is permitted.
2. The final drive ratio is unrestricted.
3. Cars may use sequentially shifted motorcycle transmissions. Reverse gear is not required.
4. All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Mechanical gear shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters air-shifters and similar devices are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are prohibited.

What is a "similar devise?

I'd prefer to require mechanical shift only to keep it simple.

J. Suspension
1. All suspension components shall be of steel or ferrous material, with the exception of hubs, hub adaptors, hub carriers, bell cranks, pivot blocks, bearings and bushes, spring caps, abutment nuts, anti-roll bar links, shock absorber caps, and nuts which may be aluminum alloy.
2. Springs: steel only.
3. Shock absorbers: Steel or aluminum alloy body.
4. Control arms and all associated items that attach directly to the chassis members shall be boxed in or captured to prevent intrusion into the cockpit.
5. Front A-arms shall be equipped with anti-intrusion bars to limit intrusion into the cockpit.

K. Brakes
Unrestricted, except:
1. All pistons in a given caliper must be of the same size. Calipers must be ferrous or aluminum alloy.
2. Brake rotors are restricted to ferrous material.

L. Steering
Unrestricted, but steering must be provided for only the front wheels. [i]Might it be worth it to look at restricting it to the front wheels?[i/]

M. Wheels and Tires
Thirteen (13) inch diameter wheels with a maximum rim width of ten (10) inches are the only wheel sizes permitted. Material is unrestricted providing it is metal.

I am not in favor of the large wheels - they will only serve to increase the performance levels of braking and cornering and can possibly be incompatible with current car suspensions (both the geometry and physical layout for clearances, steering lock, front wing clearance, etc.) Combined with the wide body proposal, they will push the safety envelope of tube frames.

I'm in favor of 10" rims.

What are the thoughts on fans and fairings? Current FF rules don't allow them, FC does. Personally, I know what can be done for performance gains with both, and don't really want to have to go there! It would probably be best to not allow them.

Since we tried to parallel the FC rules, I think we should stick to that.

N. Minimum weight
Minimum weight is 1000 lbs with driver.

F-1000 Dimensions

1. Safety roll-over bar.
2. Front track
3. Rear track
4. Wheelbase Fig 4 refers to "substantial structure", which disappeared from the rules a couple of decades ago! Reference should be changed to 7 to match the drawing.

If you wish, I can draw up a new diagram specifically for F1000 use.

Maximum height is measured with the driver aboard.
Maximum height excludes safety rollover bar on which there is no maximum height.


Is this better yet? What can we live with? I'll run in this class with what I wrote. I don't like the restrictor and engine rules, but I can live with it I can live with 1 inch restrictor, but not any smaller.

Have at it.

[Art Smith]

starting with Rob's and adding a little California sunshine: (Art's puts are in blue)


H.1. FORMULA 1000 PREPARATION RULES
Formula 1000 is a restricted class. Therefore, all allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T. Homologation is required for all cars.

A new car will not have any modifications, changes, or additions... So a new car builder is not restricted by this rule?

A. Definition
A formula for purpose built, open-wheel, open cockpit racing cars. F1000 allows converted Formula Continental, Formula 2000, Formula Ford, and purpose-built motorcycle-powered tube frame chassis. Re-homologation as an F1000 is required for all converted cars.

B. Safety
F1000 cars must comply with GCR Sections 17, 18, 19, and 20. Additional safety requirements are addressed in sections C and D.

C. Chassis
1. The chassis shall be of tubular steel construction only. Composite construction (defined as carbon fiber, Kevlar, honeycomb or fiberglass) in a structural application is prohibited. Stress bearing panels are not permitted except as specifically allowed in these rules. Stress bearing panels are defined as sheet metal affixed to the frame by welding, bonding, rivets, bolts, or screws which have centers closer than 6 inches.


I'd prefer this state that the chassis shall be tubular steel construction between the front bulkhead and the rear roll hoop bulkhead and that a stressed floor is required between those bulkheads. I'd also like, to keep it simple and unambiguous, that the chassis be free aft of the rear roll hoop bulkhead.

2. The soles of the driver’s feet shall not extend beyond the front edge of the wheel rims (in normal position; i.e., pedals not depressed) and shall remain behind the front bulkhead. The lower main frame rails shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) centimeters (9.84”) apart (inside dimension) from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop.

3. The area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the front (delete roll hoop) bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead shall incorporate one of the following:

a. Panel(s), minimum of either .060” 6061-T6 heat-treated aluminum (delete (6061-T6(or equivalent)), or 0.020" 6-4 titanium sheet, or eighteen (18) gauge steel, attached outside of the main frame tubes.
b. Reinforced body - at minimum, consisting of a double layer, five (5) oz., bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame.

Titanium was mentioned here in a thread. I find that expensive, but what do others think?

For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than six (6) inch centers (no stress-bearing panels). The material used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material.

4. A stress-bearing floor pan/undertray is required (delete permitted) (recommend required) between the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. Composite or stabilized materials shall not be used for stress-bearing panels. The mountings for brake and clutch pedals and cylinders (front bulkhead), instruments, (front roll hoop bulkhead), and rear roll hoop bulkhead (behind the driver) may also be stress-bearing panels. No other stress-bearing panels are permitted (between the front bulkhead and the rear roll hoop bulkhead) . The firewall portion of the rear roll hoop bulkhead (panel) shall extend the full width of the cockpit. Forward facing air ducts may be installed for the purpose of delivering air directly to the engine area. Air duct openings may be located within the cockpit provided the firewall is extended to prevent flame and debris from reaching the driver. (Any shape may be used to form firewall extension.) All firewall inlets shall prohibit passage of flame and debris.

Stating that the floor pan is "permitted" rather than "required" (as it is currently), is NOT good from a safety standpoint, and a bad regression from current required standards. I assume that this is an oversight?
Also, the chassis rules make no mention of the "curvature" or "deviation" (I hate those terms!) of the floorpan. Currently, the cars cannot step the floor more than 1 inch, whereas this oversight in the proposal will allow full raised noses a la F1, etc, with the underside bodywork being the only thing that has to keep within the 1 inch limit. While this could be a lot of fun to play with as a designer, would allow production of more downforce, and would allow for 'sexier' looking cars, I'm not sure that we really want to open that can of worms.

The entire bottom of the car, between the rear of the front tires and the front of the rear tires, must be a flat plane which does not deviate more than 1 inch. (Or better words to that effect)

5. Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels may be nonferrous, of any shape, and fastened to the frame in any manner.

6. No engine oil or water tubes are permitted within the cockpit.

7. It is not permitted to construct any suspension member in the form of an asymmetrical airfoil or to incorporate a spoiler in the construction of any suspension member. Symmetrical streamlining of suspension members is permitted provided the chord is horizontal within plus or minus 5 degrees.

The reason for the "horizontal axis" requirement as stated in current rules is that it forces the airfoil tubing major axis to be oriented pretty much horizontal to the ground, regardless of whether or not the airflow at the tube is actually up, down, or sideways. I understand what you are trying to do with this wording, however, as you have written it, I believe I could successfully win an argument for the use of a section of airfoil tubing tilted so that it produces downforce as all I would have to do is produce some bogus airflow study showing that the airflow in the area of the tube is along the symmetrical axis of the tube (and thereby "streamlined" as concerns the airflow, which is how it is worded), when it reality it isn't and you cannot prove otherwise. Reverting to the currently accepted "horizontal" wording will help eliminate this sort of future headache!

I don't care how this is worded as long as I can use the normal 4130 streamline tubing. Why don't we simply say it must be round, elliptical,or streamline tubing?

D. Bodywork and Airfoils

1. See table of dimensions. delete (Airfoils are a requirement for this class.) Airfoils compliant with Figure XX and Table YY are permitted in this class. Forward-facing roll bar/roll cage bracing and required padding will not be considered in the cockpit opening dimensions shown in the table.

2. The driver’s seat shall be capable of being entered without the manipulation or removal of any part or panel, except the steering wheel and/or driver’s head surround (horse collar) structure.

3. Fuel filler necks, caps, or lids shall not protrude beyond the bodywork of the car.

4. Fuel cell air vents shall be located at least 25cm (9.84 inches) to the rear of the cockpit. A safety fuel cell is required per GCR Section 19.

5. Carbon fiber is prohibited in any external panels including crushable structures, or any panels licked by the airstream (e.g., radiator ducting or engine air inlet). Carbon fiber may be used in internal panels and components (e.g., instrument panel, radio boxes) unless otherwise restricted.

6. The entrant shall designate a flat rectangular reference area with minimum dimensions of 12 inches by 12 inches. This reference area is located on the lower surface of the chassis (the surface licked by the air stream) between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire. The center of the reference area must be no more than three (3) inches from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.

For the full width of the body, between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire, no point on the lower surface of the (delete (chassis) car(use the word "car" - not chassis) (does this mean that you will not allow an undertray that covers over the underside of the chassis?) (the surface licked by the air stream) shall be more than 2.54cm (1 inch) above the plane determined by the reference area designated by the entrant and on a line perpendicular to that reference plane. No point on the lower surface of the (delete (chassis) car may be below the plane determined by the reference surface on a line perpendicular to that plane, except as specifically permitted herein. Compliance with these requirements shall be accomplished by placing a straight edge on the reference surface designated by the entrant and verifying that the requirements are met. A maximum of four (4) one (1) inch by four (4) inch rub blocks are allowed anywhere on the lower surface of the (delete chassis) car, and may extend below the reference plane.

Reference to only the lower surface of the "chassis" means that ONLY THE CHASSIS is subject to this rule! Not good! This means that everything else on the underside is free!

delete (7. Venturi sections are not permitted on the lower surface of the car between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire.)

Just simply dump this rule and keep the measurement requirement.

Define what a venturi is or this rule is as useless and open to bad interpretations just as the 'no venturi tunnel' rule is now in FF & FC! Any engineer or designer worth his salt will just shake his head at this rule as it is written!

In explanation: For any particular shape to truly be a 'venturi' in the definition that most club people think of, it has to pass three tests :

1 - It has to be shaped as a constriction.

2 - It has to be shaped such that it would at least seemingly create a pressure drop.

3 - It actually has to create a pressure drop.

If any one of these three tests can be shown to be in doubt, any protests against a particular shape will be lost.

Conversely, I can successfully argue (and be scientifically accurate in all respects) that a totally flat bottom with a radius at the leading edge is a venturi. It will pass all three tests. Heck, a flat bottom without a leading edge radius will pass the tests.

In that case, not a single current car is legal!

Not defining a feature that you are banning is the lazy way out.


delete (8. Diffusers are permitted behind the front of the rear tires.)
8. Diffusers are permitted.

Recommend dump this entirely. Not needed. Let the designer figure out how to work around the relatively flat area under the car between the front and rear tires.

Not really sure what this means. The current FC rules allow the diffuser to start wherever you want in front of the rear tire leading edge, but it can only rise the 1 inch allowed at the leading edge of the rear tire. This wording would seem to restrict the START of the diffuser to be no more forward than the rear tire leading edge. If so, no current diffusers would be legal.

9. Movable aerodynamic devices, including aerodynamic skirts, are prohibited.

Will wear strips that stick just slightly ( a few thou) below the reference plane be deemed illegal? It might be advisable to allow rubbing strips at the outer edges of the sidepods to stick down a tiny bit, say, no more than .050" While this is not absolutely necessary, it would make sidepod bottom maintenance issues a lot easier.

The rules already mentioned this sort of thing. Nothing below the designated plane except for specific sized rub blocks.

What about:

1 - Crushable structures - no mention as yet. - This needs added somewhere.
2 - No air ducting for downforce with all air flowing thru heat exchangers, etc. This needs added somewhere.

?????????????????????????????????????

E. Engines
1. Motorcycle-based 4 cycle up to 1005cc.

Why 1005 cc? Engine bore and stroke must remain stock. They are all less than 1000cc.

Engines must be from a production based motorcycle in which at least 1000 units were produced in a given model year.

2. Bore, stroke, compression ratio and maximum camshaft lift must remain stock. The competitor must possess an original factory manual for the engine to allow compliance verification.
3. The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed. Devices that modify inputs to the ECU (e.g., Power Commander) may be used. Stand alone after market ECUs are not permitted.
4. Turbochargers and superchargers are prohibited.
5. Carburetion and fuel injection are unrestricted.
No mention of airbox. I assume this will be free?

6. The exhaust system and exhaust manifold are unrestricted, within SCCA safety and sound regulations.
7. The lubrication system is unrestricted; a dry sump system is permitted. What are the thoughts on lubricants restrictions? If the most liberal interpretation of this rule is used, you can coat/impregnate any engine parts with slick films, teflon, DLC, etc, as long as they are classified as a lubricant (which they are).

Here we go again with this SIR thing. I'd prefer no SIR with engines that must remain completely stock (except for exhaust, Power Commander, and wet or dry sump). I don't think we want to allow these coatings with the SIR.

8. Oil coolers are unrestricted.
9. delete (Radiators and water pump are unrestricted.) The cooling system is unrestricted. Radiators, if housed in or incorporating a cowl air-scoop deflector, shall comply with body regulations.

F. Single Inlet Restrictors
The use of a GCR-compliant Single Inlet Restrictor is mandatory. The maximum inside diameter of the Single Inlet Restrictor shall be 23.0 mm. The Single Inlet Restrictor shall be fabricated with a 6061 aluminum alloy and may be anodized.

According to my knowledge and calculations, this is too small. It will limit the HP of a stock engine 2005 Suzuki GSXR-1000. I wanted to see F1000 as 1000 lbs, 1000cc, and 1 inch restrictor (if we used it at all).

What material is required? If I use a high thermal expansion material that can grow 1mm in ID at operating temp (with a little help from a heating coil!), yet still be under the 23mm limit at say, 95 degrees F, am I illegal? And yes, there are such materials available! And no, I'm not going to tell you where you can get them!

The material must be specified.

G. Fuel system
The fuel system is unrestricted within the following limitations:
1. Fuel per GCR Section 17.4
2. Fuel Cell Vents: Fuel tank air vents shall be located at least 10 inches to the rear of the cockpit.
3. Fuel Filler Neck: Fuel filler necks, caps, or lids shall not protrude beyond the bodywork of the car.
4. Fuel cell shall comply with Section 19.
5. Fuel capacity: maximum 10.83 gallons.

H. Electrical System
The electrical system is unrestricted within the following limitations:

Does this mean we can put a switch on the brake system to turn on the alternator on FI engines? And leave if off when the brakes are not used? (my opinion, YES!)

1. Self-Starter: Cars shall be equipped with an on-board self-starter and an on-board power supply controlled by the driver while in a normal driving position.
2. Lights: a tail light is required per GCR Section 17.19

Is this the rain light?


I. Transmission/Final Drive
1. Rear wheel drive only is permitted.
2. The final drive ratio is unrestricted.
3. Cars may use sequentially shifted motorcycle transmissions. Reverse gear is not required.
4. All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Mechanical gear shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters, and similar devices are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are prohibited.

What is a "similar devise?

I'd prefer to require mechanical shift only to keep it simple.

J. Suspension
1. All suspension components shall be of steel or ferrous material, with the exception of hubs, hub adaptors, hub carriers, bell cranks, pivot blocks, bearings and bushes, spring caps, abutment nuts, anti-roll bar links, shock absorber caps, and nuts which may be aluminum alloy.
2. Springs: steel only.
3. Shock absorbers: Steel or aluminum alloy body.
4. Control arms and all associated items that attach directly to the chassis members shall be boxed in or captured to prevent intrusion into the cockpit.
5. Front A-arms shall be equipped with anti-intrusion bars to limit intrusion into the cockpit.

K. Brakes
Unrestricted, except:
1. All pistons in a given caliper must be of the same size. Calipers must be ferrous or aluminum alloy.
2. Brake rotors are restricted to ferrous material.

L. Steering
Unrestricted, but steering must be provided for only the front wheels. [i]Might it be worth it to look at restricting it to the front wheels?[i/]

M. Wheels and Tires
Thirteen (13) inch diameter wheels with a maximum rim width of ten (10) inches are the only wheel sizes permitted. Material is unrestricted providing it is metal.

I am not in favor of the large wheels - they will only serve to increase the performance levels of braking and cornering and can possibly be incompatible with current car suspensions (both the geometry and physical layout for clearances, steering lock, front wing clearance, etc.) Combined with the wide body proposal, they will push the safety envelope of tube frames.

I'm in favor of 10" rims.

What are the thoughts on fans and fairings? Current FF rules don't allow them, FC does. Personally, I know what can be done for performance gains with both, and don't really want to have to go there! It would probably be best to not allow them.

Since we tried to parallel the FC rules, I think we should stick to that.

N. Minimum weight
Minimum weight is 1000 lbs with driver as qualified or raced.

F-1000 Dimensions

See Figure XX and Table YY


delete
(1. Safety roll-over bar.
2. Front track
3. Rear track
4. Wheelbase Fig 4 refers to "substantial structure", which disappeared from the rules a couple of decades ago! Reference should be changed to 7 to match the drawing.)

If you wish, I can draw up a new diagram specifically for F1000 use.

Maximum height is measured with the driver aboard.
Maximum height excludes safety rollover bar on which there is no maximum height.


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[R. Pare]

Richard,
Your experience with how the FF rules were used as a basis for FC is way beyond my time. I've always read the FC rules as independent of the FF rules, hence my arguments - like the "bracketry" and stressed floor pan.

Just to clear thing up about the FC rules in case it hasn't sunk in yet for some:

The FC rules specificly state : " All newly constructed cars shall meet the 1986 construction rules for Formula F. "

At the end of the first paragraph at the start of the FF construction rules it states: " All new Formula Fords are to be built to these specifications cover in D.6., through D.7.h.. (Required for Formula 2000 also.) "

It can't get too much clearer than that about the FC construction rules!


As to the rules proposal, I'll see if I can put any comments I may have in blue:

H.1. FORMULA 1000 PREPARATION RULES
Formula 1000 is a restricted class. Therefore, all allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T. Homologation is required for all cars.

A new car will not have any modifications, changes, or additions... So a new car builder is not restricted by this rule?

That wording is meant to mean these are the only allowable things that can be done. Pretty poor wording.

A. Definition
A formula for purpose built, open-wheel, open cockpit racing cars. F1000 allows converted Formula Continental, Formula 2000, Formula Ford, and purpose-built motorcycle-powered tube frame chassis. Re-homologation as an F1000 is required for all converted cars.

B. Safety
F1000 cars must comply with GCR Sections 17, 18, 19, and 20. Additional safety requirements are addressed in sections C and D.

C. Chassis
1. The chassis shall be of tubular steel construction only. Composite construction (defined as carbon fiber, Kevlar, honeycomb or fiberglass) in a structural application is prohibited. Stress bearing panels are not permitted except as specifically allowed in these rules. Stress bearing panels are defined as sheet metal affixed to the frame by welding, bonding, rivets, bolts, or screws which have centers closer than 6 inches.


I'd prefer this state that the chassis shall be tubular steel construction between the front bulkhead and the rear roll hoop bulkhead and that a stressed floor is required between those bulkheads. I'd also like, to keep it simple and unambiguous, that the chassis be free aft of the rear roll hoop bulkhead.

2. The soles of the driver’s feet shall not extend beyond the front edge of the wheel rims (in normal position; i.e., pedals not depressed) and shall remain behind the front bulkhead. The lower main frame rails shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) centimeters (9.84”) apart (inside dimension) from the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop.

3. The area between the upper and lower main frame tubes from the front roll hoop bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead shall incorporate one of the following:

a. Panel(s), minimum of either.060” heat-treated aluminum (6061-T6 or equivalent) or eighteen (18) gauge steel, attached outside of the main frame tubes.
b. Reinforced body - at minimum, consisting of a double layer, five (5) oz., bi-directional, laminated Kevlar material incorporated into the body which shall be securely fastened to the frame.

Titanium was mentioned here in a thread. I find that expensive, but what do others think?

For either method, fasteners shall be no closer than six (6) inch centers (no stress-bearing panels). The material used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material.

4. A stress-bearing floor pan/undertray is permitted (recommend required) between (change 'between" to "from" so as to stay consistant with current practice)the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead. Composite or stabilized materials shall not be used for stress-bearing panels. The mountings for brake and clutch pedals and cylinders (front bulkhead), instruments, (front roll hoop bulkhead), and rear roll hoop bulkhead (behind the driver) may also be stress-bearing panels. No other stress-bearing panels are permitted (between the front bulkhead and the rear roll hoop bulkhead) (No need for this - what is permissable is already stated.) . The firewall portion of the rear roll hoop bulkhead (panel) shall extend the full width of the cockpit. Forward facing air ducts may be installed for the purpose of delivering air directly to the engine area. Air duct openings may be located within the cockpit provided the firewall is extended to prevent flame and debris from reaching the driver. (Any shape may be used to form firewall extension.) All firewall inlets shall prohibit passage of flame and debris.

Also, the chassis rules make no mention of the "curvature" or "deviation" (I hate those terms!) of the floorpan. Currently, the cars cannot step the floor more than 1 inch, whereas this oversight in the proposal will allow full raised noses a la F1, etc, with the underside bodywork being the only thing that has to keep within the 1 inch limit. While this could be a lot of fun to play with as a designer, would allow production of more downforce, and would allow for 'sexier' looking cars, I'm not sure that we really want to open that can of worms.

The entire bottom of the car, between the rear of the front tires and the front of the rear tires, must be a flat plane which does not deviate more than 1 inch. (Or better words to that effect) Maybe state that the floorpan must meet the same measurement rule as the underside licked by the airstream? The problem in this may be that the Speads and some others (Gloria?) won't comply. I've got the feeling that somebody specifically wants those cars to be legal or easily modifiable to fit these rules. You may then run up against a brick wall here!

5. Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission, suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components, and body panels may be nonferrous, of any shape, and fastened to the frame in any manner.

6. No engine oil or water tubes are permitted within the cockpit.

7. It is not permitted to construct any suspension member in the form of an asymmetrical airfoil or to incorporate a spoiler in the construction of any suspension member. Symmetrical streamlining of suspension members is permitted.

The reason for the "horizontal axis" requirement as stated in current rules is that it forces the airfoil tubing major axis to be oriented pretty much horizontal to the ground, regardless of whether or not the airflow at the tube is actually up, down, or sideways. I understand what you are trying to do with this wording, however, as you have written it, I believe I could successfully win an argument for the use of a section of airfoil tubing tilted so that it produces downforce as all I would have to do is produce some bogus airflow study showing that the airflow in the area of the tube is along the symmetrical axis of the tube (and thereby "streamlined" as concerns the airflow, which is how it is worded), when it reality it isn't and you cannot prove otherwise. Reverting to the currently accepted "horizontal" wording will help eliminate this sort of future headache!

I don't care how this is worded as long as I can use the normal 4130 streamline tubing. Why don't we simply say it must be round, elliptical,or streamline tubing? No - that would eliminate any formed, boxy shaped, non-tube stuff (rockers, for instance). I'd just revert to the current "If the suspension member is of streamlined or airfoil cross section, it shall be symmetrical about its horizontal axis."

D. Bodywork and Airfoils

1. See table of dimensions. (Airfoils are a requirement for this class.) Forward-facing roll bar/roll cage bracing and required padding will not be considered in the cockpit opening dimensions shown in the table.

2. The driver’s seat shall be capable of being entered without the manipulation or removal of any part or panel, except the steering wheel and/or driver’s head surround (horse collar) structure.

3. Fuel filler necks, caps, or lids shall not protrude beyond the bodywork of the car.

4. Fuel cell air vents shall be located at least 25cm (9.84 inches) to the rear of the cockpit. A safety fuel cell is required per GCR Section 19.

5. Carbon fiber is prohibited in any external panels including crushable structures, or any panels licked by the airstream (e.g., radiator ducting or engine air inlet). Carbon fiber may be used in internal panels and components (e.g., instrument panel, radio boxes) unless otherwise restricted.

6. The entrant shall designate a flat rectangular reference area with minimum dimensions of 12 inches by 12 inches. This reference area is located on the lower surface of the chassis (the surface licked by the air stream) between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire. The center of the reference area must be no more than three (3) inches from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.

For the full width of the body, between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire, no point on the lower surface of the chassis (use the word "car" - not chassis) (the surface licked by the air stream) shall be more than 2.54cm (1 inch) above the plane determined by the reference area designated by the entrant and on a line perpendicular to that reference plane. No point on the lower surface of the chassis (add "or underside car surface licked by the airstream')may be below the plane determined by the reference surface on a line perpendicular to that plane, except as specifically permitted herein. Compliance with these requirements shall be accomplished by placing a straight edge on the reference surface designated by the entrant and verifying that the requirements are met. A maximum of four (4) one (1) inch by four (4) inch rub blocks are allowed anywhere on the lower surface of the chassis, (add "or underside car surface licked by the airstream") and may extend below the reference plane.


7. Venturi sections are not permitted on the lower surface of the car between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire.

Just simply dump this rule and keep the measurement requirement.
If so, we need to somehow limit what can be done on the underside. My suggestion printed below about not allowing the lower surface to drop back down once it has been raised is probably about all that we ca really do without things getting way too complicated.
Define what a venturi is or this rule is as useless and open to bad interpretations just as the 'no venturi tunnel' rule is now in FF & FC! Any engineer or designer worth his salt will just shake his head at this rule as it is written!

In explanation: For any particular shape to truly be a 'venturi' in the definition that most club people think of, it has to pass three tests :

1 - It has to be shaped as a constriction.

2 - It has to be shaped such that it would at least seemingly create a pressure drop.

3 - It actually has to create a pressure drop.

If any one of these three tests can be shown to be in doubt, any protests against a particular shape will be lost.

Conversely, I can successfully argue (and be scientifically accurate in all respects) that a totally flat bottom with a radius at the leading edge is a venturi. It will pass all three tests. Heck, a flat bottom without a leading edge radius will pass the tests.

In that case, not a single current car is legal!

Not defining a feature that you are banning is the lazy way out.


8. Diffusers are permitted behind the front of the rear tires.

Recommend dump this entirely. Not needed. Let the designer figure out how to work around the relatively flat area under the car between the front and rear tires. No - without the rules stating that diffusers are legal, we then get into the 'undefined area' stuff again. Just simply state that diffuser undertrays are permitted - it then parallels the current FC rules.

Not really sure what this means. The current FC rules allow the diffuser to start wherever you want in front of the rear tire leading edge, but it can only rise the 1 inch allowed at the leading edge of the rear tire. This wording would seem to restrict the START of the diffuser to be no more forward than the rear tire leading edge. If so, no current diffusers would be legal.

9. Movable aerodynamic devices, including aerodynamic skirts, are prohibited.


What about:

1 - Crushable structures - no mention as yet. - This needs added somewhere.
2 - No air ducting for downforce with all air flowing thru heat exchangers, etc. This needs added somewhere. Just copy the FF/FC rules for this stuff

E. Engines
1. Motorcycle-based 4 cycle up to 1005cc.

Why 1005 cc? Engine bore and stroke must remain stock. They are all less than 1000cc.

Engines must be from a production based motorcycle in which at least 1000 units were produced in a given model year.

2. Bore, stroke, compression ratio and maximum camshaft lift must remain stock. The competitor must possess an original factory manual for the engine to allow compliance verification.
3. The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed. Devices that modify inputs to the ECU (e.g., Power Commander) may be used. Stand alone after market ECUs are not permitted.
4. Turbochargers and superchargers are prohibited.
5. Carburetion and fuel injection are unrestricted.
No mention of airbox. I assume this will be free?

6. The exhaust system and exhaust manifold are unrestricted, within SCCA safety and sound regulations.
7. The lubrication system is unrestricted; a dry sump system is permitted. What are the thoughts on lubricants restrictions? If the most liberal interpretation of this rule is used, you can coat/impregnate any engine parts with slick films, teflon, DLC, etc, as long as they are classified as a lubricant (which they are).

Here we go again with this SIR thing. I'd prefer no SIR with engines that must remain completely stock (except for exhaust, Power Commander, and wet or dry sump). I don't think we want to allow these coatings with the SIR. Might be too much of a pain to catch and enforce. My vote is to allow anything

8. Oil coolers are unrestricted.

9. Radiators and water pump are unrestricted. Radiators, if housed in or incorporating a cowl air-scoop deflector, shall comply with body regulations.

F. Single Inlet Restrictors
The use of a GCR-compliant Single Inlet Restrictor is mandatory. The maximum inside diameter of the Single Inlet Restrictor shall be 23.0 mm.

According to my knowledge and calculations, this is too small. It will limit the HP of a stock engine 2005 Suzuki GSXR-1000. I wanted to see F1000 as 1000 lbs, 1000cc, and 1 inch restrictor (if we used it at all). You won't get anywhere here, I'm afraid!

What material is required? If I use a high thermal expansion material that can grow 1mm in ID at operating temp (with a little help from a heating coil!), yet still be under the 23mm limit at say, 95 degrees F, am I illegal? And yes, there are such materials available! And no, I'm not going to tell you where you can get them!

The material must be specified. It might be in the new GCR section that describes SIR.

G. Fuel system
The fuel system is unrestricted within the following limitations:
1. Fuel per GCR Section 17.4
2. Fuel Cell Vents: Fuel tank air vents shall be located at least 10 inches to the rear of the cockpit.
3. Fuel Filler Neck: Fuel filler necks, caps, or lids shall not protrude beyond the bodywork of the car.
4. Fuel cell shall comply with Section 19.
5. Fuel capacity: maximum 10.83 gallons.

H. Electrical System
The electrical system is unrestricted within the following limitations:

Does this mean we can put a switch on the brake system to turn on the alternator on FI engines? And leave if off when the brakes are not used?Yes.

1. Self-Starter: Cars shall be equipped with an on-board self-starter and an on-board power supply controlled by the driver while in a normal driving position.
2. Lights: a tail light is required per GCR Section 17.19

Is this the rain light?Yes


I. Transmission/Final Drive
1. Rear wheel drive only is permitted.
2. The final drive ratio is unrestricted.
3. Cars may use sequentially shifted motorcycle transmissions. Reverse gear is not required.
4. All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Mechanical gear shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters air-shifters and similar devices are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are prohibited.

What is a "similar devise?

I'd prefer to require mechanical shift only to keep it simple.

J. Suspension
1. All suspension components shall be of steel or ferrous material, with the exception of hubs, hub adaptors, hub carriers, bell cranks, pivot blocks, bearings and bushes, spring caps, abutment nuts, anti-roll bar links, shock absorber caps, and nuts which may be aluminum alloy.
2. Springs: steel only.
3. Shock absorbers: Steel or aluminum alloy body.
4. Control arms and all associated items that attach directly to the chassis members shall be boxed in or captured to prevent intrusion into the cockpit.
5. Front A-arms shall be equipped with anti-intrusion bars to limit intrusion into the cockpit.

K. Brakes
Unrestricted, except:
1. All pistons in a given caliper must be of the same size. Calipers must be ferrous or aluminum alloy.
2. Brake rotors are restricted to ferrous material.

L. Steering
Unrestricted, but steering must be provided for only the front wheels.

Wheels and Tires
Thirteen (13) inch diameter wheels with a maximum rim width of ten (10) inches are the only wheel sizes permitted. Material is unrestricted providing it is metal.

I am not in favor of the large wheels - they will only serve to increase the performance levels of braking and cornering and can possibly be incompatible with current car suspensions (both the geometry and physical layout for clearances, steering lock, front wing clearance, etc.) Combined with the wide body proposal, they will push the safety envelope of tube frames.

I'm in favor of 10" rims.

What are the thoughts on fans and fairings? Current FF rules don't allow them, FC does. Personally, I know what can be done for performance gains with both, and don't really want to have to go there! It would probably be best to not allow them.

Since we tried to parallel the FC rules, I think we should stick to that.

N. Minimum weight
Minimum weight is 1000 lbs with driver.as qualified or raced.

F-1000 Dimensions

1. Safety roll-over bar.
2. Front track
3. Rear track
4. Wheelbase Fig 4 refers to "substantial structure", which disappeared from the rules a couple of decades ago! Reference should be changed to 7 to match the drawing.

If you wish, I can draw up a new diagram specifically for F1000 use.

Maximum height is measured with the driver aboard.
Maximum height excludes safety rollover bar on which there is no maximum height.


Is this better yet? What can we live with? I'll run in this class with what I wrote. I don't like the restrictor and engine rules, but I can live with it I can live with 1 inch restrictor, but not any smaller.

Have at it.
[/QUOTE]

[RobLav]

OK - thanks. Good comments.

Art, - The only item I question is the titanium thing. To me, it does not match the low cost philosophy. But to others, it might. I'd rather not specify the 6061T6 aluminum either. If someone wants to use 2024 or 7075 or some other high strength alloy, let it be. Perhaps a 40,000 psi (or somewhere near there) minimum tensile strength material requirement might work.

Thanks to Richard for his input and clarifying that Formula F spec. That had gone right over my head while reading the FC rules many times. It seems we have some inconsistencies in our FC rules and their application. But this is why we require as unambigious F1000 rules as we can attain, and at the same time, keep them relatively simple. And I'll be stubborn and still maintain that I could argue that Lee Stohr's spar would be illegal under the rules as currently written. How on earth can that be called bracketry? Just because it has been legal in FC and FF does not necessarily mean it would be legal in F1000. The structure is different. There is no gearbox back there, only a differential. Maybe I could build a bracket to house the driver around the cockpit? But... I'm being stubborn.

I'll wait until mid afternoon tomorrow for any more comments before compiling all this and sending to the CRB.

Thanks again.

R

[Art Smith]

Rob-

6061-T6 is a safety requirement; I recommend putting the burden of effort on those that would use something else for their own good. it's my sense they'll have a hard time finding a professional engineer that would sign for the substitution(s). what's the standard for"or equivalent" ? titanium is also a safety driven comment; it's still used in a lot of "bullet-proof vests"..................


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[sidney]

In the interest of those wanting to do something different on the engine side. If a SIR is used for the 4 Cylinder engines with the power limited to around 140-150 hp, why not allow the 2 cylinder motors into the class without the SIR restriction?

It sure would make it easier to fit a 1000cc motor in a DB-6, SE-3, and other rocker cars, or the like, plus the power would be in the neighborhood of 140 and, I think the twins sound better. :-)

I like the SIR, and keeping the motor completely stock, except maybe allowing the clutch to be aftermarket, as the greater weight of the car tends to be an additional load on this area of the engine. With a power restriction, maybe this is less of an issue. I like the 1000 bikes must be produced rule. Leaves out the ultra expensive Superbike motors.

I applaud all those who have been willing to provide meaningful input to these rules without getting nasty. This is sometimes very hard to do when you can't read faces or see body language.

Ian

[Art Smith]

Rob-

since you've emerged as a voice of reason focused on getting a "good set of F1000 rules", here's a process suggestion designed to manage expectations and avoid you being drowned by a tidal wave of last minute comments. with the number of potential changes/questions in play I'd recommend you post an August 11 updated draft and state clearly that the last day for comments to that draft will be five days prior to your submission date. you absolutely should reserve some time to reflect and consider the "submission draft"; there are lots of points of view and interests that need to be balanced to arrive at a "good set of F1000 rules". the draft being technically correct is the one thing you should not be concerned about during consideration of the submission draft. if there's one thing that should be obvious to all from the dialog regarding the leaked draft and therefore argues for an updated draft, it's single words make a huge difference; ie: .....lower surface of the chassis..... should be .....lower surface of the car licked by the airstream....! shame on the committee and shame on the community if we don't as a minimum arrive at a "good set of F1000 rules" that are technically complete, correct, and internally consistent.


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[R. Pare]

The "or equivalent" specification in the case of these panels is that any substitute alu panel would need to have at least the same minimum tensile and yield strengths. 2024-T3 and 7075-T6 are easily both well above the specs for 6061-T6.

With the current rules, since the base material type spec is aluminium, any substitute material that is "equivalent" must also be aluminium. Titanium, etc., are not legal "equivalents" because they do not comply to the material type spec.

If you really want to get the safety spec up on the method that is used by almost all manufacturers - the kevlar in the body panels - then it needs to be increased to about 6-8 layers to get it to the functional equivalent of the alu spec. Don't know how hard it will be to get this increase approved.

On bracketry - you need to use your imagination just a little! Just because the spar is shaped out of flat plates bolted together and are larger than something that you can fit into the palm of your hand, doesn't mean that it cannot be in actual function a "bracket" - you should see some of the "brackets" used on old battleships! As said before, the Stohr spar is the functional equivalent of the bellhousing & transmission that make ups the rear portion of every modern formula car out there. Leave it alone!

[RobLav]

Richard,

I spent a few years as the Main Propulsion Officer on an old Navy steam powered Destroyer. So yes, I've seen "brackets". And that's why I call the venturi a "convergent - divergent nozzle". That's what I was taught almost 25 years ago.

So... if I fabricate a rear box (diff carrier) out of square tubes and bond and rivet aluminum to the basic structure, will that be considered a bracket?

If I use the same structural technique to connect the engine to the chassis, will that too be considered a bracket? If the floorpan under the engine is built with the same technique, will that too be considered part of bracket?

If the answers to those questions are that they would legal, then I'll leave the wording alone.

Yes, I am being persistent. But after fabricating a rear spar out of 1/2" 7075 plate on my RF 96 conversion, I would build it completely different next time. My first attemp is much too overweight (but real strong!) I'll pay much more particular attention to the load paths for my next design. I also want a non-limited slip diff with a reverse.

Lastly, in the F1000 rules committe, I was a strong proponent of allowing stressed aluminum sheet thoughout the chassis. But I was in the minority... It seems to me that there is some concern with the safety of these cars because of the potential speeds. The addition of stressed aluminum to the chassis provides significantly increased safety and structural stiffness at relatively minor cost. But I guess I'll let this go. It seemed a no-brainer to me.

[R. Pare]

I spent a few years as the Main Propulsion Officer on an old Navy steam powered Destroyer. So yes, I've seen "brackets". And that's why I call the venturi a "convergent - divergent nozzle". That's what I was taught almost 25 years ago.

You are correct there - that's why the whole bottom of a flat bottomed car will fit the same description!

So... if I fabricate a rear box (diff carrier) out of square tubes and bond and rivet aluminum to the basic structure, will that be considered a bracket?

Yes, as it serves exactly the same function as current bellhousing/transmission setups. The Stohr spar is structurally no different, except that it is not bonded as far as I know.

If I use the same structural technique to connect the engine to the chassis, will that too be considered a bracket? If the floorpan under the engine is built with the same technique, will that too be considered part of bracket?

This one gets a bit more complex, but is still easily solved- the difference is in how it is attached to the main chassis. I personally would not be in favor of a bonded skin "box" around the engine that is also bonded to the main chassis on 6 inch or less centers, as it puts that section of the chassis into the "monocoque" arena. If, however, a "stressed panel" structure made up of sheet and tubes, or even just sheet, is attached to the main frame (usually the rear roll hoop) on centers greater than 6 inches, then it is not a "stressed panel" as far as being part of the chassis is concerned, and will easily fit the rather loose "bracket" description.

Lastly, in the F1000 rules committe, I was a strong proponent of allowing stressed aluminum sheet thoughout the chassis. But I was in the minority... It seems to me that there is some concern with the safety of these cars because of the potential speeds. The addition of stressed aluminum to the chassis provides significantly increased safety and structural stiffness at relatively minor cost. But I guess I'll let this go. It seemed a no-brainer to me.

The potential speeds of the cars, and the potential attendant stresses, are exactly the reason why I am not in favor of the wide bodywork and tires, UNLESS something is done to severely limit the downforce than can be created off of the bottom of the car. If the rules go thru as they currently stand, a car built to take advantage of everything and withstand the forces will, from necessity, be a lot more expensive to build.

To me, this whole exercise is to get in place a class that is less expensive than what we current have!

[JerryH]

AS usual Richard, you are right - on all counts - but my focus is The larger wheels and wider side pods, which, as you said, will (in a properly optimized car - which will come - at a price) result in faster cars with much greater stess on components. This will instantly outdate any converted FC car, resulting in the need to spend more on those cars too. If the older cars are updated sufficiently to be fast enough, parts will start to fail, and expensive (dangerous) crashes will likely result.

Rennie is right when he says that limiting the power enough will be self regulating as far as the drag from the tires, sidepods, etc. (put bigger tires on a FV and it slows down). But, I'm not sure we will ever see the power restricted enough to accomplish that goal. In addition, very low drag, wide sidepods could easily be disigned, which only leaves the wheels/tires that the power restriction could control - and again, I don't think we will get that restricted (except at very fast tracks, where we may see cars run the smaller wheels if the rules stay the way they are - we need to specify a size front and rear wheel - not just a limit - if not we will need more wheels to be competitive - more wheels equals more cost.)

I know the disire is to allow the speads, gloria, etc to run in the class, but is it worth outdating all the FC's out there, and driving up the cost of new cars (new tooling, castings, etc.).

I have sent my thoughts on this to the crb.

Again, thanks to all who have labored so hard on this. The class will exist only because of your efforts - and it will be great!

Jerry

[John Mosteller]

[SIZE=1]I am reposting the letter I sent to the CRB on only allowing stock engines.What you have above doesn't state that any parts of the engine need to be stock.You could take out a 15 pound crank out and put in a 9 pound knife edged billet if you wanted as long as the stroke is the same or titanium rods.You could design your own head and use it as long as the compression stays the same or install a racing gearbox with three dog gears and on and on.I don't see why virtually unlimited modifications should be allowed.The current motors have plenty of power as is.If you stay with what is above there will be some with lots of money that will have $2000 port jobs,$3000 cranks,$2000 gearsets etc.If thats what the majority want thats is fine but I am personaly for stock and AMA has had a lot of experience with the Superstock class to hone their rules. Also on the elimination of coatings above.It will be very hard to do as a lot of the stock motors have coated parts nowdays.What these AMA derived rules say is the parts have to remain stock with no metal removal,blueprinting or surface treatments.So my assumption is that if the stock pistons are coated they would be ok.So here is what I sent in:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]I have modified the excerpt from the superstock rules that were in my previouse post to
eliminate the things that don't pertain to the installation into a formula car.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]Below is what I intend to send to the CRB to be added to the items in F1000 class proposal
to insure any new cars be at least constructed to the current level of FF and FF2000 designs[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]and to propose engine rules that will allow one to buy a stock 1 Liter motorcycle engine install
it and go racing without being at a big disadvantage to professionaly built engines. The
professional engine builders will probably still be able to do a few things like play with
clearances and reduce the ring tension to gain a little power even with the rule against
blueprinting.The manufacturers don't list what the stock ring tension is and have a range
of clearances that are acceptable.So it would be very difficult to prove that some blueprinting
has taken place.I am going to wait a few days before sending this in to allow comments and
maybe some tweeking if someone can point out any holes in things or a reason why something should be added or eliminated. Then I encourage every one who feels like I do and would like to be able to compete with a stock engine to copy the letter and send it to the CRB.If they recieve a lot of support for something it is more likely to get incorporated in the new class.

[/SIZE]
To the CRB,

I request the following to be added to [SIZE=1]the items in F1000 class proposal
to insure any new cars be at least constructed to the current level of FF and FF2000 designs
and to propose engine rules that will allow one to buy a stock 1 Liter motorcycle engine install
it and go racing without being at a big disadvantage to expensive professionaly built engines.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=1]All newly constructed cars shall meet the 1986 construction rules for Formula Ford cars.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]1 Carburetor/fuel injection/intake modifications are limited to the following:

a)Fuel injection may be replaced with carburators for those who want
to symplify the Formula car installation and run at the lower weight limit.
b) Carburetor jets and needles may be replaced.
c) Fuel lines and vent lines may be replaced.
d) Aftermarket fuel filters may be added.
e)All components involved in fuel injection systems must remain
standard except a Power Commander may be added to enable
the mixture to be tailored to the exhaust and SIR intake requirements.
f) Installation of additional components to the fuel injection
system is not permitted.
g) The airbox is open in order to incorporate the SIR into the system.

[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]2 Engine/Ignition modifications are limited to the following:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]
a) Except as noted, all internal and external engine parts must
remain stock with no modifications, metal removal, blueprinting,
or surface treatments.
b) Pistons, rings, piston pins, and circlips may be replaced only
with standard bore, stock production items. There is no
allowance for overbore.
c) Cam sprockets may be slotted solely for the purpose of altering
cam timing. Press-on cam sprockets may be replaced with
aftermarket steel bolt-on cam sprockets and adapters.
Aftermarket cam chain tensioners are permitted.
d) Light cleaning of gasket surfaces with steel wool, Scotch-Brite®,
etc. is allowed.
e) Cylinder head combustion chambers may be cleaned by bead
blasting with valves seated in place. Intake and exhaust ports
may not be bead blasted or cleaned with abrasive material
such as steel wool or Scotch-Brite®.
f) Valves must remain as produced with no modifications. Valve
springs may be shimmed with standard or aftermarket shims.
g) Valve seat inserts may be reworked or replaced with OEM or
aftermarket seats of original dimensions. Any dimensional
thickness of the stock inserts may not be increased. Aluminum
casting of cylinder head ports and combustion chambers must
remain absolutely stock, with no metal removal.
h). Gaskets may be replaced with aftermarket parts.
i) Clutch plates and springs may be replaced with aftermarket
parts.
j) Transmission gears may be shimmed only for the purpose of
proper engagement. Standard or aftermarket shims may be
utilized.
k) Shifter return or detent springs may be replaced with aftermarket
springs.
l) Electric-assisted gear change mechanisms are permitted.Shift
mechanisms operated through direct-acting electric actuators or
air shifters operated by electric solenoid are permitted.
n. Modifications to the stock starting and charging systems are
not permitted. Starters and complete charging system must be
in place, connected and functional before, during and after an
event. Charging systems must meet manufacturers minimum
output specifications, as listed in the service manual.
p. 49-State model engine and ignition components may replace
those same components on California-only motorcycles of the
same manufacturer, year, and model.
q. The complete ignition/engine control system must be the original
OEM parts for the model being used in competition except
as follows:
1a. Ignition timing may be altered by slotting the ignition trigger
mounting plate or replacing the stock ignition rotor with an
aftermarket rotor.
2a. Ignition control modules may be modified or replaced with
aftermarket modules.
3a. Spark plugs and plug wires may be replaced with aftermarket
parts.
4a. The original cooling system thermostat may be removed or
modified.
5a. All other parts, except as previously noted, must remain as originally
produced by the motorcycle manufacturer at the time of sale
to its dealer network.

3 the motorcycle wiring harness may be altered or replaced with a custom
harness to facilitate the installation.

[/SIZE]

[Lee Stohr]

If the 23mm SIR won't allow the bike engines to rev past 9500rpm, is that what you guys really want ? 135hp is about all you get at the countershaft.

[John Mosteller]

I am not going to go there with the 23mm SIR as the cars will probably be slower than a FF.
To me there is no point in having another Formula car class unless it is somewhere between FC and FA.I think it should be 1 in or 25.5mm.

[RobLav]

John,

Your engine input here is perfect. Wonderful. The 23mm SIR will kill it. I certainly won't join with that size restrictor. Agree performance should be somewhere between FA and FC.

The F1000 rules committee was very split concerning the use of the SIR. A couple of us agreed to use a restrictor only if it did not restrict an 05 GSXR-1000 in basically stock form, which my calculations indicated to be approximately 195HP at the crankshaft. Frankly, I feel hijacked by some individuals in the F/SR committee, and it has left a bad taste for me. If anyone on the F/SR committee states that the 23mm SIR was an input from the F1000 committee, it is a downright fabrication.

So - yes John, I'd like to add what you wrote here to the rest of these rules that we've been trying to live with - and send it to the CRB. Thank you.

[Lee Stohr]

05 Suzuki in stock form makes 167 hp with no restrictor at the countershaft.
I hope a restrictor size that allows the engine to turn it's stock 12000rpm will be approved. Just my two cents.

[RobLav]

Lee,

Look at this website:

http://www.factorypro.com/dyno/true1.html

Those are rear wheel samples. at the bottom, they provide formulas for estimating crank HP.

[SIZE=4]Crank HP vs. True Rear Wheel HP[/SIZE][SIZE=2]
[/SIZE][SIZE=2]That's a tough one - and LONG....
The short?
Take crank HP, subtract 14.5% (please don't email me and ask - I won't answer - search SAE and old Yamaha), take that, and subtract around 10% to 15% and you'll get about True HP at rear wheel.


I reversed those formulas from Rear Wheel HP to derive an estimated crank HP. With a racing exhaust and Power Commander, I think I came up with about 195HP at the crank. The SIR size is dependent upon crank HP. So, look at that chart and see what size SIR pertains to 195HP.


[/SIZE]

[Lee Stohr]

I'm just talking about real dyno numbers from engines we use in our DSRs.
151hp at the rear wheel is the best current bikes make, according to a road test that I thought realistic.
www.motorcycle-usa.com/article_page.aspx?articleid=2086&page=11
The rear wheel numbers in your reference seem good, they are even lower for a stock engine.

[Mike B]

Rob,
The SIR size was determined by the F/SRAC, not anybody on the F1000 committee so there was no hijacking. What was submitted was the HP number we all decided on (180 hp?). As was said from the moment the proposal was submitted: the F/SRAC had the right to adjust that number as they fit and assign an SIR size to achieve it, and they exercised that right.

Lee,
If I'm not mistaken, you're a member of said committee. You've already made material changes to the proposal, why not just change the SIR size instead of saying "I hope a larger size will be approved"? You make it sound as though you have no influence.

[carnut169]

We need to pitch in and buy a 23mm sir and send it to any builder w/ a dyno. Heck, even a motorcycle could have the sir installed for testing on a chassis dyno... then we would know what effect the sir has. If it limits hp to 135 and rpms to 9500 it will take a good idea (F1000) and ruin it. Personally, I'd just run my car like it is in FS before throwing out that boat anchor.

How much is that sucker? If everyone on the F1000 committee would agree to split it, I'm in for my share. If it does not kill my stock motor (hp & revs) then send it to me and I'll pay everyone back.

[RobLav]

Mike - yes - I know. The F/SR committee have been struggling with the same issues that we did, including the SIR size. I am completely bothered by the fact that, in one of our phone discussions with Dave Gomberg concerning the SIR, he had mentioned the 23mm SIR as an example, and that is what ended up being their proposal. That's what I am calling hijacking.

The F/SR committee have privy to a chart that shows the rough relationship between SIR size and HP. From what I can gather, the 23mm SIR will severely limit the HP of the 05 GSXR-1000.

The F/SR committee is also not in agreement in using the SIR at all. As far as I'm concerned, it is being forced through as a supposed method to keep costs down, which is nonsense.

John M,s AMA Superbike engines rules are the way to go. And I still maintain that we should rely on the integrity of the driver / entrant as one of the methods of enforcement, with stiff penalty for not.

[VehDyn]

Rob/Sean,

I agree with you guys about the SIR limiting way too much from estimates i have seen. Granted those are estimates without data to back it up, but that is the case for the current proposal as well.

I think there are a lot of people out there that are salivating at the opportunites this class provides. Cool (relatively inexpensive) engines, chassis' to tinker with, etc. I know we have a few guys here at work that plan on share development on each others cars when we jump in the mix. Severely hampering the performance of the engines so that it is right on the heart of the other classes we already have seems unfortunate and will kill it before it starts. I would hope they would open up that restictor and limit it later with data to back it up. oh yeah, I love those wider tires too!! just my opinions.

Ken