F1000 Rules Proposal Ramifications

[R. Pare]

As most of you have guessed by now, I am not in favor of the rules proposal as it currently sits. While I have tried to explain my reasons, for the most part it has been in fragmented form over many posts. In order to make sure that everyone understands the "big picture", the below is a summary of my concerns. Not all of my concerns are stated - the post would get much too long!

After this, it is up to the individual to make his own opinion, and let the Competition Rules Board know.



The current F100 proposal has the following ramifications:

1 - The current proposal will allow raised noses. Raising the nose will allow performance gains from increased front wing efficiency, increased bodywork costs to shape the forward undersides, and increased airflow to the underbody. A raised nose structure is substantially more difficult to build in adequate frontal crash frame integrity. All of these factors will add to production and development costs.

2 - Wide tires will add 20-25% contact patch area, and an attendant increase in potential grip. Increased grip will raise suspension and frame stresses. Increased grip will increase crash impact speeds.

3 - Wide sidepods will increase the potential for downforce generation almost linearly. With careful shaping, the wide sidepods can decrease the increase in drag from the wider tires to that of the current FC sizes, and possibly even less. The result will be increased maximum speeds, increased cornering speeds, and increased crash impact speeds.

4 - All of the above will demand brake system upgrades.

5 - All of the above will serve to separate the production of these new cars from the production of current FC,& FF, as well as F600 if it comes along. Manufacturers will not see any gains in manufacturing savings with common parts for 3 or 4 classes.

6 - All of the above will instantly obsolete the idea of conversions - they will not be able to remain competitive without extensive and expensive modifications that are well out of the skill level of most competitors.

. . . . A - Wheel purchases. New wheels are about $2000 a set. Most competitors need 3 sets at a minimum. Cost increase for the conversion: $6000.

. . . . . . 1 - Probable suspension upgrades for strength and wheel clearance. Cost could easily run to well over $5000.

. . . . . . 2 - Probable front wing clearance issues. The fix could be as little as moving the front wing forward or as complex as a completely new nose and wing. Cost: $1500 and up.

. . . . B - Brake upgrades. A complete set of new brakes will run in the area of $2400, and could go quite a bit higher, not including modifications to the uprights to accept the system.

. . . . C - Wide bodywork. All-new sidepods, sidepods bottoms, undertrays, ductwork, and hangers. Costs could easily run upwards of $3500, and most likely a lot more if made to optimize airflow correctly.

. . . . D - Raised nose. Frame modifications, suspension modifications, new nose, new wing. Could easily run upwards of $7000.


You can basically think of a car built to these specs as an open-wheel D-Sports with a bit less HP and a little less bodywork - the differences are very minor. A new DSR is now in the $60000 - $68000 range without a motor. A new optimized F1000 will cost only around $5000 less.

Some will argue that the import "spec" origin cars - most likely the F. Ireland, Gloria and Speads - already with the wide tires, raised noses and wide bodywork, do not go that fast. While this is true, it is only because these cars were not designed and built to compete against anybody other than themselves. They are not a true barometer of the performance potential of this proposal. The cornering potential of a car build to optimize performance within these parameters will conceivably brake and corner at nearly Formula Atlantic levels. Tube frames built to the current level of technology will not be very safe, if safe at all, when subjected to impacts at these increased speeds.

It is also true that even if the rules stayed the same as current FF/FC, converted cars will not be really competitive with the bespoke-built and optimized cars that will eventually be available. However, even an optimized new car will most likely be only about 1 - 1.5 seconds a lap faster than a converted car, making the typical converted car a mid-packer at most races. Such cars will make good entry cars for many new drivers. With the new proposal, the converted car will probably be about 3 seconds or more off the pace, and won't even bother to show up.

If the European manufactured cars want to play in our sandbox, they can modify their cars to suit our rules for a lot less than the cost to individual racers to upgrade their current FC's.





It's now up to you guys to let you opinions be known.

[JerryH]

Well said Richard!

While I think some of your figures may be a little high, the cost will be substantial to update an older continental. The wheel cost alone is significant for a large number of car owners.

Combine the safety and cost issues and it seems clear the most appropriate decision would be to leave body width and wheel sizes the same as FC.

New cars will come and as you said, may well be quicker than a converted car - but keeping the rules the same as FC will result in closer competition, and lower cost - which will keep cars coming to the races. Isn't that what we all want?

Jerry

[carnut169]

Wow. My car must be worth a ton more than I thought it was... wide Jongbloeds, Penon Raised nose, front wing clearance fixed... 1st $40,000 gets it!

In reality I picked up a couple sets of 3 piece wheels and swapped the outer 1/2s (about $500), filed off about a 1/4" of front wing (lower back corner)- free, brakes are absolutely no problem (same power as Pinto w/ less weight), suspension-? (see above)

The costs associated w/ my conversion are all posted right here on Apex and it was no-where near $55,000. I am right at the F1000 weight limit, width limit, wheel limit- fits perfectly. Again, I am only basing my opinions on a real-life example so your experiences may vary.

Is my car optimized? No! One of the great joys (and greatest frustrations) is developing the car. I agree that a converted 96VD can't be as good as a converted 98+, all things being equal. I hope that my head-start will be good enough for several years of good racing .

Some will argue that the import "spec" origin cars - most likely the F. Ireland, Gloria and Speads - already with the wide tires, raised noses and wide bodywork, do not go that fast. While this is true, it is only because these cars were not designed and built to compete against anybody other than themselves. They are not a true barometer of the performance potential of this proposal. The cornering potential of a car build to optimize performance within these parameters will conceivably brake and corner at nearly Formula Atlantic levels. Tube frames built to the current level of technology will not be very safe, if safe at all, when subjected to impacts at these increased speeds

.

This does not really make sense, and you can add my car to the group of underperforming cars.


Richard- I understand your concerns w/ the current proposal and apprieciate your input re the rules but think your concerns about the above scenarios may be a bit over the top.

[racer27]

I agree with Jerry & Richard 100%> I thought the goal was and should be to design a car with performance levels close to FC, with conversion costs being reasonable, if one decides to go that route, or new car cost being reasonable ($25K???) if one goes that route. We are trying to increase field counts but putting new cars/conversions on the market. In addition, if the F1000 & F600 share the same base rule set, that may also be beneficial in terms of economies of scale, tempting more manufactures to come out and play, driving competition, which is always good. I don't think we need another $50K+ car, the market already addresses that need with current offerings. Making conversions practical should also put some much needed FC parts on the used market making it easier for the Traditional FC guy to keep his car race ready at reasonable cost.

What is the email addy to send input to? CRB@SCCA dot Com?

[carnut169]

As the rules are written they state a maximum width of 10"... not a required width of 10". The wider wheels are not faster! The additional weight/ drag equals the increased cornering speeds (IF you get them hot enough). The only reason I run them is b/c the tires last forever and they look neat. If I was in a National race at Road Atlanta I'd set the car up to run a set of R25s on my 6 & 8" OZs...

[Chas Shaffer]

I have to admit this is the first time I have ever read a post in the F1000 section of Apex and wow I didn't realize what was going on!

Richard, I agree with most of your points. Having read through the proposed rules I was thinking to myself this is going to be an insanely fast car for a tube chassis. My instincts tell me it will be dangerous. The potential levels of down force, grip and horsepower will be staggering for a tube chassis car. It's perfectly clear to me that this is being pushed by people who want to sell the cars more than it is by competitors (other than those competitors who believe the rhetoric being preached by the importers). What is further bothersome is the resellers of these cars hold prominent, influential positions within SCCA. This sounds a lot like how we ended up with the FSCCA car.

Can conversions be performed cheaper than you propose, sure, if someone wants to buy used parts and slap something together but to do a competitive conversion with new parts will be pricey.

My greatest concern is further segmenting of the formula classes. Didn't we learn anything from FSCCA? New cars with new technology do not bring an influx of new drivers it just splinters the existing classes and turns off some of the existing drivers. At best the few new drivers offset those who left. It is amazing to me that we are talking about adding another class of cars when we already have small fields in the existing classes. I do not believe the fields are small because we aren't using motorcycle engines. If someone wants a newer technology engine and gearbox they can buy a FSCCA car or a Zetec. A strategy has been set for a spec car (FSCCA) and a new engine package in FC (Zetec), let's give it a few seasons before abandoning it.

If an importer wants to push a new chassis let them start their own pro series. They can spend their own money building it up and if it's successful then we can start racing them in the Club once there is a critical mass of cars. Imagine if the Club had adopted a class for Formula Renault a few years ago.

My observation is we went from having a comp board who wouldn't change anything to a trigger happy group who will approve everything. We already have an aluminum head approved in FC that hasn't been built better yet tested, Zetec rules changes were happening before the car ever raced, and I can't keep up with how many different cars are allowed to race in FA. My point is we have made enough changes let's see where they take us before trying another fix of the week, otherwise no one knows what to do and therefore will do nothing.

[S Lathrop]

Obviously, Richard and I have discussed the rules. The proponents of these rules are selling them as being minor tweeks of the existing FC rules. They are not even close.

I see here a more dramatic rule change than I faced when we went from air cooled FSV to water cooled engines and the class became European F3 with VW engines.

I sat down with another professional race engineer/car designer who has a lots of F3 experience and we went over the rules. In essence the cars will have 1000 lbs of down force at 150 mph and enough power to go that fast. The old water cooled FSV's were less than 2 seconds slower that a FA at that time. That is exactly what I see this car doing, now.

F3 is the closest thing to this car but the chassis is composite. I look at my inventory of parts now that I am about finished with my new Zetec FC car and almost nothing will be usable -- not the frame or the body. The front and rear wing will be a place to start.

I figure it will take me 3 to 6 months to design just the chassis. My engineering friend will do the body and aero package. Remember, no one in the world has designed a tube frame formula car with this performance potential. The first problem will be to get sufficient strenght in the chassis to deal with the suspension loads and then to see if the result will provide the requiset driver protection. This will be a stepped nose car.

As an example, the side pod will have to be a serious composite structure given the extra width (13 inches per side) and the fact that you will have to pass sufficient air through a small (20 cm or 7.87 in. tall) side pod to cool 175 hp engine, and the additional areo loads generated. This is a neat challange.

What you will see is a cross between an F3 and an F1 with the aero package similar to the the F1 cars before the stepped bottoms, narrow track and groved tires. Now that is exciting.

The car will be half the cost of cars of similar performance, FA. But that is equal to the top end of FC.

Is there market for such a car in SCCA club racing? Does such a car serve the interest of existing SCCA participants? I don't know. I do know that none of my existing customers will be coustomers for this car, they don't want or can't spend this kind of money.

This would be an exciting project if I had the customers and backing for all the research needed to design and build such a car. It will do nothing for the FF and FC guys looking at the future value and viablilty of their classes.

[bobfv2]

Remember when the SCCA Formla car was announced is was going to be around $ 25.000 and by the time it was delivered it was over $30.000. Keeping the price down will sell cars and gain drivers. If it is too expensive why not buy a used FF or FC??

[RobLav]

Like Steve says, I'm excited at the prospect of this car's performance. If the F1000 rules too closely parallel the F2000 rules, I believe we would see more fracturing of F2000. But if the rules provide for something between FC and FA, I believe we would see more entries. There are a lot of us who would love to run a FA, but view the costs as too high, especially with the highly stressed and expensive engine.

If the CRB approves the class to be somewhere between FC and FA, I'll sell my RF99 and look at Steve's ideas for the new car, especially if I can purchase it as a kit. If the CRB approves the rules to parrallel FC, I'll put a Zetec in the RF99 and run it next year.

[VehDyn]

Rob,

I totally agree with everything you said. Why have 3 classes at or near the same performance. I think it would be great to have some separation to have it stand on its own. I respect the opinions of the others that have raised the issues, however, if it was the same as FC, why not run FC?

Ken

[carnut169]

Rob,

I totally agree with everything you said. Why have 3 classes at or near the same performance. I think it would be great to have some separation to have it stand on its own. I respect the opinions of the others that have raised the issues, however, if it was the same as FC, why not run FC?

Ken

Because you save big $$ over the Pinto. A motor lasts a long time and when you replace it the cost is 2/3 the price of a Pinto rebuild. No head refreshes, and you get a new trans at the same time. Also, less weight on the remainder of your package saves wear & tear.

I see F1000 as FC (or just a little better) performance with less cost and current technology. You get to ditch the 70's Pinto motor!

Everyone above is correct... an FC running at FA speeds would not be safe. F1000 cars don't. DSRs with better aero & built motors did not get really fast until Stohr put tunnels on them. F1000s can't have tunnels, nor can they have built motors.

Where is everyone getting these numbers? Give me a break. 1000lbs and 150hp at the wheels does not make FA performance.

[S Lathrop]

I have made my point. We either have FC or FA type cars.

I don't think that SCCA Club Racing can attract enough customers for $50,000 car cars to make the project viable for more than one manufacturer. If the car were in the $30,000 price range then volume would be more than enough for several manufacturers. The demand is very elastic with price for you economics students.

I think the cars built at the FC model would help keep the cost of all cars in that catagory under control. If conversion were competitive, then the value of FCs would be enhanced. FF would benefit also.

I was hoping to build the business by furnishing parts for conversions and move into new cars after the class was established. The kit car would have more appeal to those with modest resources and good skill sets. The $50,000 cars are going the be for those who can afford the to buy turn key play toys. I have had almost none of high dollar customers in the 35 years I have been in business.

Then again I might get a shock and find that the best market is for helping guys acquire $50,000 cars through a combination of sweat equity and modest amounts of cash. For sure I find that the "do it yourself" customer is more fun to work with. And you guys may be right that the market for a separate F1000 and FC will combine to be better than a single F1000/FC class.




Sean:

Maybe in 30 years and 13 national titles I have learned something about race car performance and can evaluate what I see -- I also may be getting senile. That includes working with with some FA over that peroid(this year with 014 and 016). I am basing my evaluation on my years in FSV as well. Also, I have many years with Indy Lights which is the aero package of the proposed car. I suspect that if I worked with the package you have that the performance would be much closer to what I expect than what you are seeing. That being said, I hope your are correct and the rules produce a car closer to FC. In a bet, I will go with my analysis.

[RobLav]

All this discussion is pretty amusing - the philosophical differences for the proposed class. I guess that's why we have a Board of Directors. My bet on the decision is that the SIR will be used, and it will restrict the HP enough to place it, at best, about the FC level. Too bad. A missed opportunity.

It's up to the CRB now.

[Rennie Clayton]

If the cars are too fast and it becomes a safety issue, there is the simple expedient of reducing SIR diameter by 1mm, and the cars will be commensurately slower, immediately, with relatively little mechanical change to the car. Power to weight ratio and competitiveness is tweaked in tintops using weight in the form of ballast, what's so wrong with modifying the other half of the equation (power) using small increments of SIR diameter?

Why is this so hard?


Cheers,
Rennie

[Purple Frog]

Amen, Rennie!

Without a SIR this class will go the way Steve and Richard predict.

This discussion is sort of a case where everybody's right.

I for one think there is a need for a class between FC and FA. Or maybe I just wish we would let FC inch up to the 160 HP range.

[Charles Warner]

If the cars are too fast and it becomes a safety issue, there is the simple expedient of reducing SIR diameter by 1mm, and the cars will be commensurately slower, immediately, with relatively little mechanical change to the car. Power to weight ratio and competitiveness is tweaked in tintops using weight in the form of ballast, what's so wrong with modifying the other half of the equation (power) using small increments of SIR diameter?

Why is this so hard?


Cheers,
Rennie

Rennie,

I don't think it's the mechanism of the issue, but the issue itself. When I read the initial proposal as put forth by the Think Tank that formalized the F1000 class I get one concept of what was proposed. A cheap class at the regional level (at first) in which older FC cars could be easily converted (relative chassis design, capability, etc) to use motorcycle power. There was some mention made of "like chassis" but IMO the initial impetus was for these has-been (FF, F2000, FC) cars that had no chance of being competitive.

After reading the several web sites and threads regarding the issue, and seeing some of the letters to the CRB, I am seeing a desire to morph the class into an industry of its own with factory involvement and cars designed specifically for the class, as well as a move to change the rules (before they are in force) to allow factory cars that do not meet the original recommendations of the group. Talk of $13k motors and $50k cars and speeds approaching that of atlantics. The issue is taking on a life of its own and getting (IMO) out of control.

[Lee Stohr]

In DSR we have 185hp at the chain, maybe 1000lb downforce, and we can barely get to 150mph with full bodywork. An open wheel F1000 car would have much more drag, and F1000 will only have 170hp max. Remember bike engines have horsepower but no torque. 1000cc equals 85ftlbs. Sure you can rev higher and multiply the torque, but you don't get to choose your gear ratios like in FC, you have to use what came in the bike. Rarely are they optimum on a given road race track.

[ERIC THOMPSON]

In DSR we have 185hp at the chain, maybe 1000lb downforce, and we can barely get to 150mph with full bodywork. An open wheel F1000 car would have much more drag, and F1000 will only have 170hp max. Remember bike engines have horsepower but no torque. 1000cc equals 85ftlbs. Sure you can rev higher and multiply the torque, but you don't get to choose your gear ratios like in FC, you have to use what came in the bike. Rarely are they optimum on a given road race track.

ESPECIALLY TRUE IF THE ENGINES ARE REVING SLOWER(SIR),MAKING LESS POWER (SIR), AND PULLING AROUND TWICE AS MUCH WEIGHT AS A STREET BIKE!! BUT I'M STILL IN IF THIS CLASS GETS OFF THE GROUND!!

[S Lathrop]

[quote=Purple Frog]Amen, Rennie!

Without a SIR this class will go the way Steve and Richard predict.

This discussion is sort of a case where everybody's right.

I for one think there is a need for a class between FC and FA. Or maybe I just wish we would let FC inch up to the 160 HP range.

Pull the restrictor out of the Zetec and you have 160 HP.

Who will determine what is too fast? Will this be a way of punishing excellence?

I don't think that safety will be the issue with these cars if designers really follow the rules and the club enforces them. But as an example: how many FF's have nose boxes that meet the GCR standards? All cars are required to have them.

What is the difference between FC and S2000? That may be an indication of what to expect. What I expect is that the corner exit speed of the F1000 will be so much higher than the DSR that it will have the time to reach higher top speeds.

I haven't run the numbers but because the car is only 1000 lbs. this car may be able to corner with an FA. Down force to mass is very close. Nearly the same power to weight and a lower drag configuration. My design work will asume FA type performance.

If this class goes forward it could be one of the more exciting design areas in motorsports. This car has a lot less aero restrictions than F1 or F3. It is based around a fairly inexpensive package of parts. It could be just the class that SCCA needs to get back to the fore front of formula car training ground. Some place for drivers, engineers, and mechanice to practice their stuff.

[Rennie Clayton]

Steve,

Who will determine what is too fast?

Uhhhhhhh, aren't you kind of doing that in this thread already?


Charles,

Would you mind trotting out some supporting anecdotes to the notion that there is a desire to "morph the class into an industry of its own with factory involvement and cars designed specifically for the class"? I'm perfectly willing to entertain the thought, mind you, I just don't see the chain of causal logic that would lead to that conclusion.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Charles Warner]

Rennie,

I'm on a trip and can't take time to search too many threads, but take a look at the subject just above this one. Speads and Stohr. I have seen other threads indicating several of the UK based formula cars want to get involved if we could alter the rules to include their cars. I just think the initial impetus was to provide a place for older FC cars to play in a regional group. Not to create a new class that will dilute the extant ones.

[S Lathrop]

When we started I thought we were talking about FC chassis, with bike engines, performing at the same level.

The class did 'morph' into a challenge to FA. Now that the fix is in, I am getting excited about the possibilities. I still think the lower FC performance parameters and converted cars was the way to go. But that is not the game now.

The new game is to see exactly what the rules are and then optmize a design that meets the rules. The original goal of making a major reduction in the cost of a car will probably achieved but not the car I thought. We will be building FAs for half the cost.

And yes the manufacturers will take over because nothing exists that will meet the requirements and potential of the rules.

[RobLav]

The original impetus was never just "to provide a place for older FC cars to play in a regional group". The original impetus was partially that, but it also included clear provision for new chassis construction. The idea was to obtain the class' initial growth through FC conversions and then continue that growth through new chassis. We always had the belief that Stohr, Speads, Gloria, etc might join the mix. Our hope was that it would also eventually become a National Class through normal SCCA regulation.

So - the original impetus is both.

[Rennie Clayton]

Charles & Steve,

What Robert Laverty said.

The initial impetus was never to provide a place for older FC cars simply to play in a regional group; National classification was always the goal, and to that end there has always been an understanding (at least to me, it's a given) that a class must be supported by manufacturers in some fashion in order to make it healthy at a National level. Besides, although I may be confused at times, I'm pretty sure these guys can (and do!) play around in FS in regional at the moment. There is a lot of talk in recent posts about how the class has "morphed" into something that clearly has performance potential approaching that of FA, but that's simply not true. Look back at the original thoughts and posts - this potential has clearly existed from the beginning.

While I respect the fact that you thought we were talking about something else philosophically, the actual rules and ideas bandied about don't support that notion.

Speaking of morphing though, I do have a specific question for Steve: do you still think the cars will be unsafe at the current performance potential, or what? Following are quotes from two of your posts:

Tube frames are not strong enough to provide the safety protection required for a car with this performance potential.

I don't think that safety will be the issue with these cars if designers really follow the rules and the club enforces them.

Cheers,
Rennie

[Charles Warner]

"The F1000 concept originally centered on converted FC cars. The chassis preparation rules were designed to acknowledge that. The intent of these rules is to allow tube frame construction only to maintain the “low cost” part of the F1000 philosophy"

"This is a proposal to create Formula 1000, a class that essentially combines the Formula Continental chassis (or similar ones) with a restricted 1000cc motorcycle engine. The proposal would create a class that initially would be Regional-only; if its popularity resulted in the required regional participation numbers, it would then become a National class."

Rennie,

These are quotes from the original proposal that was presented to the CRB and F/SRAC. There is mention made that these rules would be eased to allow manufacturers. How anyone thought allowing manufacturers into the mix is consistent with "low cost" is beyond me.

You said: While I respect the fact that you thought we were talking about something else philosophically, the actual rules and ideas bandied about don't support that notion.

I agree. I feel the anarchical nature of this group makes it almost impossible to come up with any concept that can remain anywhere close to its original intentions. IMO the original idea was a compliment to FC and a good fit into the mix providing a place for the older chassis owned by the motorcycle enamored crowd. It is changing into a concept that will be a detriment (again IMO) to the very group it was intended to help. If this goes the way logic would dictate the poor b@stards that thought a home-built F1000 would be competitive will have to learn a hard lesson when the Speads (or whatever) goes flying past.

[Rennie Clayton]

Charles,

Seems as if we're both preaching to the choir. To paraphrase myself: regardless of "philosophy", the actual rules and ideas bandied about don't support the notion that we were essentially trying to create an FC-equivalent car, without the headache of trying to combine it with FC straight from the get-go. Whoopsies!

On the other hand, most of the initial discussion of the concept indicated that even the folks who were the most staunch advocates of the FC-conversion-only philosophy wanted some leeway to "play" within the rules. Like wide wheels, some easing of the restrictions on brake caliper materials, etc. Pick your poison, right?

For the record though, I don't think "allowing" manufacturers (how do you "allow" or "disallow" manufacturers, anyway?) into the mix precludes low cost. Which of the following is lower cost?

1. Spend $30k on an FC and bits, then spend 1000+ hours doing the conversion work.
2. Spend $50k on a new, tested, turn-key F1000 delivered to your doorstep.

The answer, of course, is "it depends"...

Cheers,
Rennie

[S Lathrop]

Rennie:

The safety issue will depend on the rules, and what people build. Currently we technically do not allow composite noses cones. You may not have noticed but I did qualify my second statement.

The rules do not assure any level of safety. In fact the prohibition against 'composite construction' makes it even harder.

The safety of composites is well established and most sanctioning bodies have codified the minimum that is required. SCCA has never done that. They have deferred to others to do the safety work.

This car is a totally new deal. No one in the world, that I know of, has a series for cars of this specification. So neither I nor anyone else can say what the safety issues will be when it comes to F1000. I made my statement based on my experience and what I was thinking might be doable. But I am guessing. Notice that I said it would take me 3 to 6 months to do the design work.

Robert Laverty: Your list of manufacturers are lacking any one I would recognize as an established builder of formula cars that have a history of running cars on American tracks and at the level of FC leave alone FA. They may be eminently qualified but what have they done?

At least when I was pushing the FC type car, we all knew what was involved because we have been racing cars at the level of performance and that type construction for decades.

At least for me this is all new territory. For what it is worth my FSV chassis qualified 1st and 2nd for the FSV race at the Phoenix Indy car race. Our times would have put my cars 15th and 16th on the Indy car grid. That is my experience at this performance level. In those days I had similar cars with both tube frame and monocoque chassis. I also have seen both types of cars in crashes. The Zink Z11 FSV (build in my shop) was the last tube frame chassis to win a major championship for cars approaching FA performance levels in the USA.

[Charles Warner]

Charles,

Seems as if we're both preaching to the choir. To paraphrase myself: regardless of "philosophy", the actual rules and ideas bandied about don't support the notion that we were essentially trying to create an FC-equivalent car, without the headache of trying to combine it with FC straight from the get-go. Whoopsies!

On the other hand, most of the initial discussion of the concept indicated that even the folks who were the most staunch advocates of the FC-conversion-only philosophy wanted some leeway to "play" within the rules. Like wide wheels, some easing of the restrictions on brake caliper materials, etc. Pick your poison, right?

For the record though, I don't think "allowing" manufacturers (how do you "allow" or "disallow" manufacturers, anyway?) into the mix precludes low cost. Which of the following is lower cost?

1. Spend $30k on an FC and bits, then spend 1000+ hours doing the conversion work.
2. Spend $50k on a new, tested, turn-key F1000 delivered to your doorstep.

The answer, of course, is "it depends"...

Cheers,
Rennie

You are right, Rennie. However, it was my understnding that the original all-up cost for a complete F1000 was aimed at 25k-30k. How things change.

[Rennie Clayton]

Steve,

I'm sorry, but I didn't really get any clarity from that.

I did note that you qualified your second statement, i.e., if designers really follow the rules and the club enforces them, and cited the specific example of FF nose boxes. I also note that you followed that up with The rules do not assure any level of safety. Huh? Which is it? I am genuinely unsure of what your position is with regards to the safety of a tube frame chassis. At first, you said that a tube frame would not be able to provide the safety protection required for a car with this performance potential. Are you now saying that it might be possible to get the requisite safety with a tube frame, and that you can't make that determination until after 3-6 months of design effort?

Let me put this another way: knowing what you know now about safety, performance potentials and materials sciences, would you put a driver in one of your vintage FSV chassis today, at those speeds?


Cheers,
Rennie

WRT manufacturers - would you not recognize Van Diemen as an established builder of formula cars that have a history of running cars on American tracks at the level of FC, and slightly above? The V-D Spec Formula car seems like it's pretty much built to these specs, and it's old news: http://www.vandiemen.co.uk/html/detail.asp?carID=5

[Rennie Clayton]

You are right, Rennie. However, it was my understnding that the original all-up cost for a complete F1000 was aimed at 25k-30k. How things change.

Too true. However, considering that a new turn-key Pro Zetec car from Van Diemen or Mygale will set you back $53k, I consider it the flightiest of fantasies that simply replacing the driveline with a bike engine-based solution would cut $25k+ out of that.

Not gonna happen, even for straight FC-equivalency...


Cheers,
Rennie

[Purple Frog]

While at PRI last year I was told that there was a Gloria based pro series in Italy in 2005 and planned for 2006.

I monitored all the committee discussion while the initial proposal was developed. It was clear to all that this would encourage professional car builders, in fact it was seen as the only way the class would grow to the numbers needed to achieve a national class standing. It was recognized early on that there are more folks that will lay out $50k, than folks that will spend 1000 hours fabbing their own creation.

Also, all on the committee seemed to want a vehicle that was a bit hotter than a FC, not just an inexpensive FC replacement.

Maybe naive, the committee went for allowing wider sidepods out of concern for side impact safety. I don't think any realized they would be adding a lot of downforce, in fact looking at cars that existed at that time (i.e. Gloria) the wider sidepods looked like a big air-brake.

I'm wiggling my toes right this moment just thinking how glad I am that last September my car was equiped with a composite nose designed for impact.

Interesting discussion. Sometimes it reminds me of my #1 axiom: No good deed goes unpunished.

[Charles Warner]

Too true. However, considering that a new turn-key Pro Zetec car from Van Diemen or Mygale will set you back $53k, I consider it the flightiest of fantasies that simply replacing the driveline with a bike engine-based solution would cut $25k+ out of that.

Not gonna happen, even for straight FC-equivalency...


Cheers,
Rennie

Thanks,

Maybe we should let F1000 be still born and concentrate on availing ourselves of the current crop of formula cars that are faster than FC. Or, are we fixated on using a $130000 motorcycle engine?

Cheers,

[sidney]

One of the recent things I keep hearing is that we need a formula class between FC and FA. Don't we already have that with FSCCA? Before you roll your eyes and shout you fool, here me out.

If I wanted to spend $35-$45k on a turn key formula car, why would I buy an F1000? I now have my marketing hat on, not the engineering one. Why buy a Stohr or Phoenix or whatever? I'm not trying to pick on you guys, but you have both already said you would build cars. Price will be the key to this whole thing. If you can build a car for $25-$30k then you may get some takers, higher than that, and you have priced yourself out because keep in mind...

With FSCCA I already get a sequential gear box, a stock motor that in heavily regulated can be easily replaced, bigger sidpods, plenty of cars to run with (even on Sundays, because I can run in FA) and a chassis that the Club sells themselves. How much more endorsement/support do you need in a $40k formula car.

Like it or not, there are some guys who are willing to convert cars, and that will be the majority of the class for some time in the forseeable future. If you disenfranchise them from the start, then this project is dead. How many $40k+ regional only cars/classes are there, including tin tops? If you try to force too much technology/cost on this class, it will be dead before it gets started.

Ian

[TimW]

One of the recent things I keep hearing is that we need a formula class between FC and FA. Don't we already have that with FSCCA? Before you roll your eyes and shout you fool, here me out.

Where have you seen an FSCCA car outqualify a continental? At the sprints, the FC pole was 2:16 and a very experienced & capable driver in an FSCCA qualified at 2:21; he previously set the RA FSCCA record in mid 2:19. And if the FSCCA is all power and no relative finesse compared to a FC, it should have excelled at RA over most any other tracks, no?

Not disagreeing with your point that we have too many classes diluting the market, by do question the FSCCA already fitting the goals of the F1000.

Tim

[Mike B]

I feel the anarchical nature of this group makes it almost impossible to come up with any concept that can remain anywhere close to its original intentions.

I thought it was the job of the F/SRAC and/or the CRB to do that. You can read this thread and formulate your own opinion but if I'm not mistaken, the only input you should officially be using in your recommendation to the CRB is that input that is submitted to you via e-mail or snail mail. Have we (and by we I mean the posters in this thread) begun to ignore the original proposal?

...I am seeing a desire to morph the class into an industry of its own with factory involvement and cars designed specifically for the class, as well as a move to change the rules...

As the defacto chairman of the F1000 committee, I know for a fact that the group has not met to revise the rules since the proposal was submitted. Additionally, the version of the rules published by Richard Pare is not significantly changed from what we submitted and in fact, moves the rule package even closer to the core philosophy than what we originally submitted. The only "morphing" I see is in this thread and it's my understanding that discussion on Apexspeed doesn't directly influence the rules. I continue to hope that you and the rest of the F/SRAC members will uphold that core philosophy as you consider the letters you receive.

However, it was my understnding that the original all-up cost for a complete F1000 was aimed at 25k-30k. How things change.

At no point in this entire process was any target cost mentioned by the F1000 committee. Those numbers only came from a couple of manufacturers AFTER the proposal was published in Fastrak and looked like it had a chance of becoming reality.

I monitored all the committee discussion while the initial proposal was developed.

Frog,
I didn't know you were paying attention all that time!

[sidney]

Isn't one of the limitations of FSCCA the fact that the car has limited items you can change on the car? If you had all the flexability of and FC car with the FSCCA would they be very close to one another?

I guess the main point I was trying to make is there are plenty of choices for someone to buy a car with similar performance with cost around $35-$50k. I guess I thought what would make F1k different is that you could get sub $30k cars to be cost effective and fun to drive. Just can't figure out why you would spend $35k+ to run regionals. The plastic trophies are much smaller.

Ian

[Charles Warner]

As the defacto chairman of the F1000 committee, I know for a fact that the group has not met to revise the rules since the proposal was submitted.

Mike,

Then why do I have an initial proposal stating regional only status at first and only using tube frame cars followed by a revised proposal stating tube frame and monococque and removing the reference to regional only? Maybe the $25-30k number was offered by constructors (a number which has now grown to near $50k?) but the proposal(s) I have certainly mention "low cost." Maybe we should attempt to define "low cost?" And the indication that the proposal(s) are mainly aimed at FC chassis is quite clear.

Whatever you guys want to put forth is fine with me. I don't have a dog in the hunt other than trying to determine (as a F/SRAC member) what the real feelings are in the real world. You are correct in that the CRB should base its decisions on the input it receives, along with our thoughts and recommendations. They are in no way bound to listen to us.

What is it you want? A low cost formula car class designed to provide a place for older, less competitive FC cars to play, or a totally new class with more open rules that will not only allow manufacturer input, but will encourage it, regardless of cost? When did a speed potential higher than FC become a design criterion?

My only point is that we should be aware of the effects of this new class on the extant classes. We do not need another formula class that will either dilute the current classes and/or be another white elephant.

[S Lathrop]

Mike:

Thank you for revealing the obvious. The committee made their decision on the basic form of the rules and that became etched in stone. Some of us were bumb enough to think that the rules were open for discussion on basic principals.

I had argued for rules that were simple a continuation of the FF/FC rules. Dumb!

Now that I have really looked at what the proposal is, I can get excited about the possibilities. We now have a class that is clearly distinct at the high end of the performance scale but reasonably priced.

How this class will impact FA and FC does not give me warm and fuzzy feelings. I see this as nearly FA performance for half the cost. Or way more performance than FC for the same money.

Rennie:

I would not race vintage anything with the intensity that we did then. We were very lucky. The Phoenix SFV cars were water cooled engines in monocoque chassis. I did have one of those cars get airborne during a FSV race at Texas World. The car was traveling in excess of 150 mph. The roll bar was nearly ground in to two parts and the engine was bairly attached. The roll bar was still intact enough to protect the driver. The driver was uninjured. That design was the first chassis to use a forward roll hoop, braced to the front bulkhead. That was before the rules required such a structure but the requirement was to come into effect a few years later.

The Z11 FSV (aircooled) was a tube frame and the Z14 (aircooled and watercooled) was the same suspension package in a monocoque chassis. The monocoque was much lighter and infinitely stiffer (4500 ft. pounds/degree compared to 1200.) The chassis setups were the same but the driving effort was dramaticly different in favor of the monocoque.



Don't look at spec cars as an indicator of performance. Example the Radical in DSR. Spec cars almost by definition underperform the design potential. We are talking an open design class to a formula (set of rules). By definition we are going to try to extract the maximum performance potential allowed by the rules. Also, rules writing is a political endevor where as chassis building is an engineering project. Different mind set.

[Chas Shaffer]

One of the biggest concerns expressed by members regarding the Zetec proposal in FC was engine availability. Rick Silver provided detailed numbers on engine availabilty and length of new engines parts availablity. I've inquired with some of the Suzuki shops in the DC area and have been told that they will not sell just an engine. I was told to call the salvage yards for wrecked bikes or buy a whole bike. Are new engines readily available from the factory or some other source or do they have to come from wrecked bikes? If so this seems like an awefully bad engine platform to base a new chassis on. For comparisons sake I called my local Ford dealer and was told I could order a crate zetec engine from Ford racing or I could order a new short block and head from the parts counter. I know that literally millions of Zetec engines were produced and are available in the the aftermarket, does anyone have production numbers on the motorcycle engines being considered?

[Charles Warner]

We are talking an open design class to a formula (set of rules). By definition we are going to try to extract the maximum performance potential allowed by the rules.

So much for the "low cost" idea.

Steve, no reflection on you. You are a businessman and should take every opportunity to increase your trade. I agree with your thoughts regarding FC and FA.