F1000 CRB Rules Proposal

[S Lathrop]

The September 2006 Fastrack News has published the CRB recommendations for F1000 for BoD approval.

The rules as written represent a very good starting point but they are no way sufficient to build or modify a car.

In particular there is no requirement for safety nose boxes. Further more Paragraph C. Chassis, 1."...Composite construction(defined as carbon fiber, Kevlar, honeycomb of fiberglass) in a structural application is porhibited..." makes VD nose boxes illegal. The stress bearing panel restraints probably makes all nose boxes illegal. The front wing mounting is for sure 'structural'.
Paragraph 4 prohibits the use of stress bearing panels except for "...(front bulkhead).....(front roll hoop bulkhead)...rear roll hoop bulkhead....". Only tube frame structures are allowed to mount the front wings? Or does Paragraph D. Bodywork and Airfoils, 5, allow carbon 'nose/wing supports as long as it is not allowed to be licked by the air stream?

Referring to paragraph D, 7, what is a venturi? If my car meets all the restrictions of D. 6,-- the 1 inch rule -- can it be ruled illegal because the diffusers start before the front of the rear tire?

When we talk about the 1 inch rule, is the DSR illustration a correct interpertation? Can I really have a 1" deep tunnel. Tunnels are not porhibited and diffusers are allowed. Can the diffuser start at the front of the side pod as long as it is within the 1 inch rule?

I remember when a car could be illegal in one SCCA division and legal in another because stewards had different interpertations of the same rule and were willing to enforce their interpertations. Where is there a definition of venturi for SCCA club racing that every one will understand?

Should a new class not reflect current thinking and practices on safety? Should there not be both a requirement for a crush box at the front and rear? By not specifying any safety structures is the club trying to duck legal responsibility for the safty of the cars raced in thier events? Also the illustration, which is not reprinted, referrs to crush structures which the rules seem to restrict of prohibit.

I am going to bring these questions to the BoD because they need to be answered.

Best that these issues get ironed out before we start racing what we build.

[Charles Warner]

The September 2006 Fastrack News has published the CRB recommendations for F1000 for BoD approval.

The rules as written represent a very good starting point but they are no way sufficient to build or modify a car.

In particular there is no requirement for safety nose boxes. Further more Paragraph C. Chassis, 1."...Composite construction(defined as carbon fiber, Kevlar, honeycomb of fiberglass) in a structural application is porhibited..." makes VD nose boxes illegal. The stress bearing panel restraints probably makes all nose boxes illegal. The front wing mounting is for sure 'structural'.
Paragraph 4 prohibits the use of stress bearing panels except for "...(front bulkhead).....(front roll hoop bulkhead)...rear roll hoop bulkhead....". Only tube frame structures are allowed to mount the front wings? Or does Paragraph D. Bodywork and Airfoils, 5, allow carbon 'nose/wing supports as long as it is not allowed to be licked by the air stream?

Referring to paragraph D, 7, what is a venturi? If my car meets all the restrictions of D. 6,-- the 1 inch rule -- can it be ruled illegal because the diffusers start before the front of the rear tire?

When we talk about the 1 inch rule, is the DSR illustration a correct interpertation? Can I really have a 1" deep tunnel. Tunnels are not porhibited and diffusers are allowed. Can the diffuser start at the front of the side pod as long as it is within the 1 inch rule?

I remember when a car could be illegal in one SCCA division and legal in another because stewards had different interpertations of the same rule and were willing to enforce their interpertations. Where is there a definition of venturi for SCCA club racing that every one will understand?

Should a new class not reflect current thinking and practices on safety? Should there not be both a requirement for a crush box at the front and rear? By not specifying any safety structures is the club trying to duck legal responsibility for the safty of the cars raced in thier events? Also the illustration, which is not reprinted, referrs to crush structures which the rules seem to restrict of prohibit.

I am going to bring these questions to the BoD because they need to be answered.

Best that these issues get ironed out before we start racing what we build.

Steve,

You make some excellent points. How about we remove the 1 inch rule and require absolutely flat bottoms (+/- .25) from forward bulkhead all the way to the beginning of the diffuser at the front of the rear wheels?

Could a tube-frame crush structure be workable?

Rear crush structure? What car has that now?

I would also suggest we get these issues ironed out before we start building what we (might) race.

[S Lathrop]

Could a tube-frame crush structure be workable?

Rear crush structure? What car has that now?

I would also suggest we get these issues ironed out before we start building what we (might) race.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front crush boxes should be either composite or aluminum boxes. The current FC rules are adiquate for aluminum but do not allow composites such as VD uses. I think that using the entire nose cone as part of the crush structure is the best way to go. We need to write the rules to cover what we are allowing to run.

Rear crush structures are required on all IRL cars. They work and work well. Such a requirement may save someone from serious injury. They also make the rear of the car less dangerous for the car behind you. The rear box will, for sure, reduce the damage to the rear of the car in any incident.

I can think of two SCCA club incidents that had serious, lifre long consequences for the drivers that would have had much different outcomes if front and rear crush boxes had been on the cars.

The .25 inch rule is what most FC's are built to because the pro FC rules were for 1 cm deviation. That dimension was chosen because people decided if you tried to build the bottom turely flat that 1 cm would be a good tollerance. It was big enough to be easy to comply with but small enough to discourage any one from trying to incorperate 1 cm in the design and get caught out because they could not maintain tollerances.

For the people who didn't want the manufacturers to write the rules, you have what you wanted. These rules are a mess until someone takes the time to flesh them out. As a manufacturer, I can see all the traps that have been laid.

As a manufacturer, you hate to get caught out by not building to the limit of the rules. Good rule writing is you protection against a competitor, a protest or a steward with an unintended or unanticipated interpertation of some rule you thought you understood.

You guys who want to convert cars better get on the band wagon or you will be blown away by stuff you did not anticipate.

[RobLav]

Wow - I see this as very positive.

Steve's comments are good. Also, the diffusor typically starts forward of the front of the rear tires on FC's, but it is within the 1" rule. If we go to the .25" rule, almost every single FC diffusor I've seen would be illegal.

The newer Van Diemens have a composite front crush structure, and the rear "box", if designed properly, could also work as crushable structure.

I thank you all.

[VehDyn]

The Pro Formula Mazda has a composite rear crushable structure as well. I saw a brief clip during one of the races where they described it.

Ken

[Charles Warner]

For the people who didn't want the manufacturers to write the rules, you have what you wanted. These rules are a mess until someone takes the time to flesh them out. As a manufacturer, I can see all the traps that have been laid.

You guys who want to convert cars better get on the band wagon or you will be blown away by stuff you did not anticipate.

Steve,

In all fairness to the guys that spent a lot of their own time and effort getting these rules off the ground, I don't believe most of them went into the project with the idea of having manufacturers involved in the class, at leat not to this extent. The class concept was truly as a subset of FS, consisting of converted older FC cars, and destined for regional status only for the foreseeable future. I seriously doubt you, Lee or Matt would be so anxious to get started on these chassis if there was not the probability of elevating the concept to full-blown national status in the very near future. Therefore, they did not attack the problem with the fervor and attention to detail you do and an eye to beating the intent of the rules wherever possible to achieve the desired "unfair advantage."

Your last comment epitomizes the problems this class will encounter. It also does not present the concept of converting a car with pre-designed conversion kits from a manufacturer in a very positive light.



.

[sidney]

[FONT=FranklinGothic-Book][SIZE=1]

[FONT=FranklinGothic-Book]

[SIZE=1]

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.

[/SIZE]

[/FONT]

Did I miss the "no tiatanium" section somewhere, or can I make my Stohr spar copy out of 6/4 Ti or carbon fiber as long as I cover it with a surface licked by the airstream?

It's too bad that some of the manufacturers didn't lend some additional support to the guys who worked hard to get this little project going. Maybe some of these pitfalls could have been avoided.


[/SIZE][/FONT]

[S Lathrop]

Sidney & Warner;

I think you will find that when we (speaking as a manufacturer) made criticisms we followed that with fully written rules proposals. Where do you think the flat bottom checking rule came from. Richard took the time to write the entire rules proposal as he felt it should be presented to the BoD.

The vagueness in the rules is intentional and time will reveal why.

One of the most bothersome aspect of the proposal is that, with one execption, the rules do not advance driver safety or even assure that it is maintained at the current levels. In particular there is no requirement for nose boxes. How many more injuries do we have to have before some one gets serious about safety?

Knowledgable people did volunteered and were turned down.

The rules that are going to the BoD are in no way representing your position, the converted FC. If you would have noticed, I have been advocating that the rules be FC based. These rules are for 'anything goes and we will see what comes out' approach.

As a historical note, the current rules for FF and FC were originally written after the first FF was built. They were then extensively revised in a 2 day meeting in Denver, CO. In attendence were Adrian Reynard, Ralph Feirman, David Bruns, Paul White, Ed Zink, John Grubb, John Crossle, myself, among others. Every one on that list was or had been a manufacturer. Those rules have worked very well for over twenty years. F1000 needs the same effort.

Finally, yes I see the potential of this class. I saw what could be done with motor cycle engines after working on a Stohr DSR for a central division customer in 2003.
He won the division and was 4th at the runoffs. In the late '70's I build a DSR for Bill Greer that was powered by a Yahama TZ 750 bike engine.

I also remember what it is like to race against 80 or more cars of the same class in a SCCA National race (something no spec car has ever done). If there is ever a chance of something like that returning, this may be the first step.

[Mike B]

Knowledgable people volunteered and were turned down.

Steve,
Just so I'm clear on this, you're not talking about volunteers for the F1000 committee, are you? Everyone that volunteered for that committee became a member.

[RobLav]

Absolutely so Mike.

And to additionally set the record straight, Richard Pare and I went back and forth quite a bit here wrt to the rules clarifications. His input was a vital piece of the recommendations I sent to the CRB.

Lastly, although I thank Charles very much for recognizing the time we spent on this, his statement:

"I don't believe most of them went into the project with the idea of having manufacturers involved in the class, at least not to this extent. The class concept was truly as a subset of FS, consisting of converted older FC cars, and destined for regional status only for the foreseeable future."

is rather presumptuous.

It's almost time to have fun with what we created. Now let's get to it.

[Charles Warner]

Absolutely so Mike.

And to additionally set the record straight, Richard Pare and I went back and forth quite a bit here wrt to the rules clarifications. His input was a vital piece of the recommendations I sent to the CRB.

Lastly, although I thank Charles very much for recognizing the time we spent on this, his statement:

"I don't believe most of them went into the project with the idea of having manufacturers involved in the class, at least not to this extent. The class concept was truly as a subset of FS, consisting of converted older FC cars, and destined for regional status only for the foreseeable future."

is rather presumptuous.

It's almost time to have fun with what we created. Now let's get to it.

Rob,

My "presumption" is based on several paragraphs from the initial proposal. Here are two of them.

"[SIZE=3]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."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]"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. "[/SIZE]

You guys want this then have at it. Just accept the consequences of what will become a(nother) $50,000+ car with a motor-of-the-week and a dying F2000 class. Some do not call this progress. I (and others) see a lot of racers sticking their heads in the sand and not looking at where this is going. IMO it is not good for club racing. Your mileage obviously varies.

[R. Pare]

It's too bad that some of the manufacturers didn't lend some additional support to the guys who worked hard to get this little project going. Maybe some of these pitfalls could have been avoided.

Sidney:

Just to let you know, some of us manufacturers have been involved, albiet unofficially, from the get-go. As a manufacturer, my belief is that the manufacturers should be available to advise the rules writers to make sure they avoid the pitfalls that are always present when non-specialists try to write and interpret what is in fact a somewhat specialised engineering disipline. As a manufacturer, it is also my belief that serving officially on a board can too easily be construed as a conflict of interests, and I have seen those conflicts of interest in actual fact in the past.

For the most part, it has been the manufacturers who have highlighted most of the flaws and omissions in the written proposals. It has been the manufacturers who have tried to keep the proposal out in the public eye on this forum and have been told in no uncertain terms that their input was no longer welcome when the proposal was published and critiqued against their wishes.

It is also the manufacturers for the most part who have tried to highlight the ultimate speed and cost potential of the proposals. The fact that some either refuse to believe what is being said, or are purposly ignoring the meanings of the proposed rules, is what has many of us worried.

It is now up the you guys to make sure that what we have highlighted as potentially fatal flaws gets corrected, IF that is your desire. We manufacturers have done our part.

[Stan Clayton]

For the most part, it has been the manufacturers who have highlighted most of the flaws and omissions in the written proposals. It has been the manufacturers who have tried to keep the proposal out in the public eye on this forum and have been told in no uncertain terms that their input was no longer welcome when the proposal was published and critiqued against their wishes.

The CRB has received constructive input on the rules proposal from a wide spectrum of interested parties, not just, or even primarily, "the manufacturers". Furthermore, your generalization that manufacturer input is no longer welcome is flatly wrong. Input from any interested party is actively solicited and each suggestion will be evaluated on its own merits. Richard, your difficulties are strictly between you and the particular person which whom you had a private email exchange, and IN NO WAY imply an adverse relationship between manufacturers and the CRB.

We continue to refine the rules package as we go along, so please continue to read Fastrack and continue to send comments and suggestions to us at crb@scca.com.

[Lee Stohr]

Steve / Richard - You guys have been racing in SCCA for a long time ! You know the rules are never clear, they are never well written. It is not delibrate, there is no secret agenda.
The club has always been this way. The intent of F1000 is clear - bike engines in tube frame FC type chassis. Any loose ends might get cleaned up over the next 12 months or so. Let's get building cars and go racing !

[Matt Conrad]

If there are gaps that are truly problems...let's address them sooner than later....I do think some of the concerns are valid and we shouldn't just relax because the rules are "set".

The thing we all need to keep in mind is the "spirit of the founders" and try to keep things in that vein. I've already seen a few "void" areas where extremely expensive titanium or carbon parts would be allowed and would be an advantage. We need to keep the rules simple and keep the costs low as the formation of this class had that in mind.

We plan to contest this class very vigorously!

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc

[Dave Gomberg]

If there are gaps that are truly problems...let's address them sooner than later....I do think some of the concerns are valid and we shouldn't just relax because the rules are "set".

They aren't set yet - we're still tweaking things.

... I've already seen a few "void" areas where extremely expensive titanium or carbon parts would be allowed and would be an advantage. ...

Tell us where you think these are and we'll be happy to look at them.

Dave

[John Mosteller]

Sidney: You can't make the spar out of carbon fiber because of the rule #1 under chassis.

Composite construction(defined as carbon fiber,kevlar,honeycomb or fiberglass) in a structural application is prohibited.

Dave :
#1 IMHO we should have crush boxes front and rear as a requirement.

#2 No titanium allowed like FC and FF.

#3 We should be able to use the 1 inch variance between the front and rear wheels to extend the diffuser so that the current FF2000 cars are not all illegal before conversion.

#4 Fasteners should be unrestricted except for the no titanium rule so that screws could be replaced with allen heads etc.

#5 the venturi section rule should be deleted as a flat bottom with rake can be interpeted as a venturi section. What is or is not a venturi section is a very gray area as to how any underbody can be interpeted.

[Charles Warner]

John,

Good points. Now, please submit them to the CRB through the proper channels. That is the way these suggestions get to the nabobs.

[sidney]

I don't plan to run in this class without a crushable front structure. The rear structure seems also very smart. If someone wants to protest me for making my car safer, then so be it. I think Frog said it best when he was wiggiling his toes because of the crush box on his Tatuus.

I was trying to defend Mike and the rest of the F1000 group that put the rules together, as I didn't see a lot of manufacturers involved in the initial writing of rules proposal.

I don't think Adrian and David are available to help iron out the rules in a two day session, and I am by no means an expert on the subject, but it seems to me that if the manufacturers want this to succeed, then maybe that's what it takes.

FWIW, I did write my comments to the CRB. Obviously the guys writing the rules for FF and FC knew what they were doing, and I chose to ask that FC rules with MC power be incorporated. We don't all get what we want, but that seemed like a good start.

I'm also not a big fan of grouping folks into a catagory that nobody can clearly define. I know who was on the F1000 team writing the initial proposal, but when we talk about manufacturers, does that include anybody, or when we say the manufacturers were not allowed to provide input, that seems not to be the case, and also very vague?

Ian

[Stan Clayton]

Sidney: You can't make the spar out of carbon fiber because of the rule #1 under chassis.

Composite construction(defined as carbon fiber,kevlar,honeycomb or fiberglass) in a structural application is prohibited.

The spar is not really part of the chassis, John, so your specific prohibition may not fit. By long tradition in FF and FC, as well as in C.5 of the F-1000 rules, "brackets" to mount the engine, gearbox, etc., are unrestricted, so this is probably a grey area. Interested persons should write the CRB at crb@scca.com.

#1 IMHO we should have crush boxes front and rear as a requirement.

Your concern is understandable, John, but in the absense of a quantifiable and testable performance standard, this probably isn't going to happen. OTOH, feel free to build front and/or rear crush boxes to whatever standard you deem necessary. The final version of the rules will specifically allow them.

#2 No titanium allowed like FC and FF.

Folks who want this to happen need to write the CRB. As it stands, fasteners and brackets are unrestricted.

#3 We should be able to use the 1 inch variance between the front and rear wheels to extend the diffuser so that the current FF2000 cars are not all illegal before conversion.

It is perfectly legal to do so.

#4 Fasteners should be unrestricted except for the no titanium rule so that screws could be replaced with allen heads etc.

Please write the CRB.

#5 the venturi section rule should be deleted as a flat bottom with rake can be interpeted as a venturi section. What is or is not a venturi section is a very gray area as to how any underbody can be interpeted.

"...a flat bottom with rake can be interpeted as a venturi section..." No, it can't. This is "settled law" in SCCA. Write Richard Pare or Steve Lathrop off line for their very humorus story of how this came to be. That said, this section may evolve.

Regards, Stan

[John Mosteller]

Stan: My Websters Dictionary defines chassis as "the part of a motor vehicle that includes the frame,suspension system,wheels,steering mechanism,etc., but not the body and engine"

By that definition IMHO the spar is definitely part of the chassis as it is part of the suspension system.

As far as venturi sections go having that wording in the rule leaves the interpretation of what a venturi section is up to the technical staff at any race across the country and I think you may get all kinds of different views.To me if you go by SCCA's definition of a venturi which is ("a region of constriction in an air duct of a carburator in which,through the actions of incoming air flow, a reduced pressure is created to induce the inflow of fuel through one or more jets.") there can be no such section under a car unless your carburator is under there.

If you go by Websters definition which is ("a short tube with a tapering constriction in the middle that causes an increase in the velocity of flow of a fluid and a corresponding decrease in fluid pressure and that is used especially in measuring fluid flow or for creating a suction (as for driving aircraft instruments or drawing fuel into the flow stream of a carburetor)") you still will not find any tubes under our cars.

So I think if you are going to use that wording then you need to define exactly what a venturi section is with respect to the underbody of a car or as I think delete that rule period as it is not definable with respect to the underbody.

On the engine side AMA allowed in their stock rules and I think it should be allowed in ours for one to replace the cam chain tensioner with an aftermarket tensioner.Several of the bike motors have trouble with the stock self adjusting cam chain tensioners failing with the results being fairly undesireable.

[Charles Warner]

Stan: My Websters Dictionary defines chassis as "the part of a motor vehicle that includes the frame,suspension system,wheels,steering mechanism,etc., but not the body and engine"

By that definition IMHO the spar is definitely part of the chassis as it is part of the suspension system.

I guess that will have to be the rule when Formula Webster appears. The spar is also a bracket onto which several items are attached, and bracketry is dealt with specifically.

As far as venturi sections go having that wording in the rule leaves the interpretation of what a venturi section is up to the technical staff at any race across the country and I think you may get all kinds of different views.To me if you go by SCCA's definition of a venturi which is ("a region of constriction in an air duct of a carburator in which,through the actions of incoming air flow, a reduced pressure is created to induce the inflow of fuel through one or more jets.") there can be no such section under a car unless your carburator is under there.

If you go by Websters definition which is ("a short tube with a tapering constriction in the middle that causes an increase in the velocity of flow of a fluid and a corresponding decrease in fluid pressure and that is used especially in measuring fluid flow or for creating a suction (as for driving aircraft instruments or drawing fuel into the flow stream of a carburetor)") you still will not find any tubes under our cars.

Again, an issue for the Formula Webster folks. This has been dealt with extensively and, as Stan says, is "settled law." Whether the various techies around the country are of a mind or not is moot. Anyone concerned about this should have, in his possession, a clarifying statement based on the Club decisions and all should be hunky-dory.

On the engine side AMA allowed in their stock rules and I think it should be allowed in ours for one to replace the cam chain tensioner with an aftermarket tensioner.Several of the bike motors have trouble with the stock self adjusting cam chain tensioners failing with the results being fairly undesireable.

Or the racer could just limit his usage of the motor to the realms that do not cause failure. Using this logic where do we stop? "I want to add widget X so the motor will rev to 16,000 rpm. If I rev to 16,000 without it the results will be undesirable."

[formulasuper]

Or the racer could just limit his usage of the motor to the realms that do not cause failure. Using this logic where do we stop? "I want to add widget X so the motor will rev to 16,000 rpm. If I rev to 16,000 without it the results will be undesirable."

Charles, I have read that some of the different bikes have cam chain tensioner problems even while operating within the manufacturers limits. It is pretty standard practice to replace them with manually adjustable aftermarket tensioners by anyone that rides a sportbike like it was designed for. That being said, I have not had any trouble with my Hayabusa engine yet but plan to replace the tensioner this winter.

[S Lathrop]

Stan and Charles;

This one got past me. Where is this definition written? Was it ruled on by the stewards? If so where can I find the rulling?

The question came up that if a car mets all the restrictions of paragraph 6, the 1 inch rule, was it legal? Or is there some further requirement defined as not being a venturi. If so what is that addition restriction?

I had proposed the situation where the diffuser started forward of the leading edge of the rear tire. Is that legal?

Please what is the answer? Where do I site the authority for either design?

Stan: the situation you are referring to never had a resolution that I could understand. I knew why the structure in question was illegal but that was not the ruling. I defy you to explain that ruling to any English teacher. The CRB just added the no venturi ruling. I still don't know what that means. The part was illegal on a FF but is standard practice on FC. Also the diffuser started behind the leading of the rear tire thus the ruling in no way covers this question. The irony to that incident was that the car suffered from understeer untill we removed the offending part.

Stan: if you are siting that ruling then I really don't know what the rules mean. At best that ruling defined a diffuser as a venturi.

In any event why perpetuate the confussion with an undefined term -- venturi on the bottom of the car.

[Dave Gomberg]

Charles, I have read that some of the different bikes have cam chain tensioner problems even while operating within the manufacturers limits. It is pretty standard practice to replace them with manually adjustable aftermarket tensioners by anyone that rides a sportbike like it was designed for. That being said, I have not had any trouble with my Hayabusa engine yet but plan to replace the tensioner this winter.

I don't know which bike engines might have this problem, but at least for my Kawi ZX-10R a replacement stock piece is about $70. If I was really worried about this (which I'm not), I'd just make it an annual maintenance item.

Dave

[S Lathrop]

Sorry I am so thick headed.

The rule says that diffusers are permitted behind the leading edge of the rear tire.

The only interpertation I can get my brain around is that a diffuser or any portion of a diffuser forward of the leading edge of the rear tire is a venturi and thus not allowed. In this case there is no tollerance even though a 1 inch deviation would easily include some portion of the diffuser.

Also I could have a tunnel leading to the diffuser as long as it did not go above the 1 inch rule. I guess that a tunnel would have to have a parallel sides and be flat on the top.

Is that what the rule says?

In a practical sense this rule would allow skids under the frame and rubb strips down the outer edges of the body. The skid would be part of referrence area.

[Stan Clayton]

Steve, you have deduced precisely why I do not like F-1000 section D.7., and why I expect the verbiage to evolve. In the end, I expect it will read closer to the third paragraph of FC rule B.4.c., except for that silly sentence which reads "Ground effects are prohibited."

As Scotty would say, "Ya canna violate the laws o'physics, Cap'n!"

[formulasuper]

I don't know which bike engines might have this problem, but at least for my Kawi ZX-10R a replacement stock piece is about $70. If I was really worried about this (which I'm not), I'd just make it an annual maintenance item.

Dave

I don't believe it's a wear problem, more of a design or weak part problem. I don't know all the details yet. My engine builder mentioned it to me.

[R. Pare]

And just how many times and for how long have I bitched about this same thing???

As these rules sit, almost all converted FC's would be illegal without replacing the diffuser - the break from the usualy flat bottom will HAVE to be moved back to behind the leading edge of the rear tire - if the break is ahead, it runs afoul of the "no venturies" rule. Current FC rules don't stipluate where the break has to be, and the rise at the front edge of the rear tire is governed by the 1" rule.

If you can't define it, then you can't say what it is about it that it is illegal!

The "no venturies" stuff IS NOT settled law, and never has been! Ask any manufacturer what the limits are that he can build to and still be verifiably legal, and he'll say "I haven't a clue!".

While we all know WHAT it is that the Club wants to ban, absolutely NO ONE has ever described or defined it - which leaves open a raft of things that any Steward could protest. With no definition stating what the limits are, ANY flat bottomed car with a diffuser and a radius at the leading edge of the sidepods is technically illegal. Cars with NO leading edge radius are illegal. Even a totally flat bottom with no diffuser and sharp edges is technically illegal!

Even if we are to ignore all of the above and state that the bottom cannot have a convergent and/or a divergent area, every FC car ever built is illegal - the leading edge and trailing edge both meet the definition of convergent/divergent nozzels.

This reminds me of when the Club wanted to ban radial tires - Goodyear said : " Tell us what a radial is and we won't build it". Guess that must have made some sense to the CRB crew at the time, as the issue was quickly dropped!

Anyone want to place bets on how long the current crop will hold out?

I will readily agree that figuring out decent wording to get rid of venturies that anyone can verify with a ruler and straight edge is probably almost impossible - most likely there will still be too many things that can be interpreted differently by different Stewards around the country.

In that case, the best thing to do is an end-run around the effects that a venturi can produce, and introduce wording that will severely disrupt the airflow pressuredrop, some of which I have posted before.

To me, there are two possible and easy ways to accomplish this - step the bottom up an additional amount ( maybe another inch) once you get out past the original FC body width of 95 cm, with a minimum radius up to the sides ( say - 2 inches), and/or require that when measured from the centerline outwards, the bottom may step up within the 1" rule, but may NOT step back down again. Almost any combination of those requirement will result in lots of airlow coming in from the sides and ruining most, if not all, downforce gains that a venturi shape might produce. It would have the added benefit of also severely limiting all the extra downforce that we know (some of us, at least) can be made off of the new body width, and keep them closer to current FC downforce levels.

Bitch #2 - Not mandating crush structures and stressed-panel floors is unconsionable, if not outright criminally negligent should a lawsuit ever arise over a death. Over the years, the Club has steadily upgraded the minimum chassis safety equipment requirements, with almost no quantifiable/verifyable measurement specs as guides, with the result that crashes that used to maim for life a DB1 driver (never mind what would happen to a Lola 540 driver), are usually now walk-aways. To suddenly DECREASE the mandatory minimums is incomprehensible.

I can see it now - a converted Lola 540 with no crushbox and a floorpan that is rivited with Ace Hardware pop rivits every 10 inches and sealed with RTV can legally pass homologation (if the other safety upgrades are done), and be allowed to go out and play in traffic at 150 MPH on the banking a Charlotte or Pocono.

Just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?

Or do we need to get out the 2x4's and hit people upside the head to get their attention?

[Charles Warner]

Charles, I have read that some of the different bikes have cam chain tensioner problems even while operating within the manufacturers limits. It is pretty standard practice to replace them with manually adjustable aftermarket tensioners by anyone that rides a sportbike like it was designed for. That being said, I have not had any trouble with my Hayabusa engine yet but plan to replace the tensioner this winter.

Scott,

I understand your point. My point is that these engines might not be suitable and a racer should make his engine choice based on this type of information. IMO we should not try to legislate all engines into either performance or reliability parity. If the motor is a good choice for a racing engine then that's the choice. If it isn't a good choice then so be it.

[Stan Clayton]

Richard, have you read my posts above?

Now, just to make sure everyone is on the same page, please pay attention to the following: current FC rear diffusers will be legal in F-1000.

Everybody got that?

Second point, Richard. Nobody has suggested that venturi sections are "settled law". What I wrote was that interpreting a flat bottom with rake as illegal is settled law. Please go back and re-read my comments from yesterday morning. If I incorrectly credited you and Steve with the story behind this case, I apologise.

Bitch #2. While you may feel it unconscionable and criminally negligent to not require crush boxes, it is the litigious society we live in which has compelled SCCA in recent years to move towards (mainly) third party standards for "required equipment" (SFI certificated H&N devices, Snell certificated helmets, etc.). Notice I do not call it "safety equipment". SCCA now makes no representation whatsoever that ANY aspect of racing may be considered safe. In fact, every driver competes on an "assumed risk" basis, and needs to take a good hard look at the face in the mirror before deciding to strap into that beast. Moreover, take a look at the latest Fastrack, Item 8 on page F-4, where the line about safety is deleted. These legacy "common sense" statements are being weeded out of the GCR and the Club's lexicon in response to the legal climate in our country. Draw your own conclusions.

Where SCCA has its own standards (e.g., roll hoop g-loading requirements), those standards can be shown to exceed industry (i.e., FIA) standards, thereby conferring a certain degree of liability protection. OTOH, when Steve and friends sat around a smoke-filled room 35 years ago in Denver and came up with 31 square inches of 18-ga aluminum as a crush box standard, without any further guidance or analysis beyond a that looks about right... level, they may well have provided more "comfort blanket" than actual protection.

You're an engineer, Richard, so must be aware of the hellish complexity of crushing events. For the unitiated, their complexity approaches anything in aerodynamics. Even FIA, who spend big bucks testing crush structures, have thrown their hands up and walked away from trying to spec configurations and materials, and have instead settled on a performance standard based on deceleration g-loading and push-off tests. As far as FIA are concerned, you can make it from blue cheese so long as it passes the dreaded "sled test".

SCCA is not to the point of requiring that standard. The testing is expensive and imposing the standard would instantly render 99-plus percent of club cars illegal. Besides, the test is valid at only about 35 MPH, so draw your own conclusions about its "real world" applicability on a race track. In the meantime, feel free to add front and/or rear crush structures to your F-1000 car as you may deem necessary. And, oh yeah, retire that 540 you got gathering dust in the garage. Any car with a well-deserved reputation for putting drivers in 6 months or more of rehab is not on my list to buy...

Regards, Stan

[R. Pare]

Stan:

Yes, I've read all of your posts, and any resemblance to logic still escapes me.

Whether it is a flat bottom with rake or venturi section, NOTHING on either has EVER been decided or described on an OFFICIAL capacity. The story I told you about "a car going up or down hill" was a NON-OFFICIAL side conversation between myself and a CRB member, exactly as you were told in the story. Both of those items are still open to interpretations that can range from logical to rediculous.

Please remember one thing : IF IT ISN"T PUBLISHED IN THE GCR, IT AIN"T A RULE

If the current diffusers will be legal as-is, PLEASE tell us what the wording will be that assures it - as the rules are currently worded, they are not. Once I see that wording, I'll stop bitching!

What we as manufacturers are bitching about is the fact that the Club still insists on banning something that HAS NO DEFINITION SET FORTH by the Club, and is therefore "unquantifiable and testable" (your words from another subject). IF IT IS UNQUANTIFIED AND UNTESTABLE, THEN HOW IS ANY ALLEDGED ILLEGALITY GOING TO BE DETERMINED?????????????

Designing a car to this sort of logic is like driving an arbitrary speed limit road every day, where you have to somehow successfully guess ahead of time what that arbitrary speed limit will be set to that day by the police officer with the radar gun!

And talking further about a lack of logic :

You won't require a safety item because the performance standard is not "quantified and testable", yet you want to also state that a certain design feature is illegal, while leaving the interpretation standards "un-quantified and un-testable".

Say what ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????

However, you have finally stated the reason behind the refusal to mandate crushable structures and stressed floorpan useage - fear of litigation if equipment of unspecified performance is mandated.

Yes, it IS a litigious society we live in, and this is where the rub lays. Up until now, it has almost always been the manufacturers and organizers that have in concert steadily increased the minimum mandated safety levels. Sometimes it was the organizers who took the lead, and sometimes the manufacturers. In either case, the publicly acceptable minimum level of safety has steadily increased over the years, to the point that, EVEN WITH NO SET "OFFICIAL" STANDARDS established for many of the improvements, todays cars are infinitly safer than those of yesteryear.

Now, because there seem to be more lawyers involved in every aspect of our lives, there has emerged an arguement that the Club can somehow be liable for mandating a safer car (and in this case, using EXACTLY the same equipment and construction standards currently mandated in the parent to this new class), because they can somehow make the arguement that by mandating certain equipment minimums, the Club is therefore assuring the participant that he will be safe in a crash. ONLY A LAWYER WOULD SWALLOW OR PROMOTE THIS SORT OF "REASONING"!

If that is the reasoning, then the Club HAS to immediately eliminate ALL safety equipment requirements in ALL classes if the absolute performance of that equipment is not quantified and tested.

Anti-intrusion bars?

Gone.

Cockpit anti-intrusion panels?

Gone.

Driver foot placement behind the leading edge of the front wheel?

Gone.

Exhaust system outlet height restrictions?

Gone.

Gee, guess what? The reason behind the wider bodywork allowance is supposedly for safety?

And unquantified and untested safety at that?

Hmmmmm...... Guess that allowance should be taken out of the rules also?

Are you starting to get the picture?

What is being missed within the lack of logic employed here is that since the Club has already established a proven and verifiable in court history of steady progression in safety standards that work, in spite of not being "tested and quantified", the legal arguement will eventually become that the Club has been willfully and purposely negligent by not insuring that every car competing has been compelled to give AT LEAST an ATTEMPT at providing the currently accepted minimal standard of safety practiced elsewhere in the Club (nevermind elsewhere in the world).

As a competitor I would not feel safe out on the track with a willfully sub-current-standard car entered legally by another competitor, nor would I as a Steward feel morally justified in allowing that car out there - ask Froggie what saved his ass at last years' Runoffs, and what would have happened if a car built to the specifications that you want to now allow had been the car that T-boned him.

And, yes, Stan, as an engineer I am fully aware of the complexities involved in trying to mandate a certain performance from a crush structure. THIS IS NOT WHAT ANYONE IS TALKING ABOUT!

The current mandates are only that there at least be an attempt at providing safety, and are only guidelines, not assurances.

As an engineer, I am also very aware of the FACT that ALMOST ANY LEVEL OF MANDATED PROTECTION ATTEMPT is better than NO MANDATED LEVEL AT ALL. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a structure as simple as whole bunch of foam-filled beer cans set on end in front of the front bulkhead will add a measure of decelleration that might just drop the load level on the chassis to a point where there is no failure, or maybe a level of failure that still substantially protects the driver, and is a whole lot better than insuring chassis failure and massive cockpit collapse when the front bulkhead is the first thing to start any real decelleration.

Anyone who doesn't understand that is lacking an understanding of even the most fundamental principals of physics.

What you deride as "it looks about right" engineered nose boxes have, both in our case and that of other manufacturers, saved many drivers from sustaining any sort of life-threatening injuries, and in crashes that were much more severe than that which claimed the legs of a DB1 driver with no nose box as allowed by the Club in a crash at MO a few years back. We also learned a lot from each of those crashes that have allowed us to substantially increase the crashworthiness to a level without it ever being officially quantified or tested that we believe that probably no other manufacturer equals.

And history has shown time and time again that way too many individuals, when faced with the choice of having to purchase or build safety equipment, or being allowed to run without it, will choose to run without it "just this once" if they think they can get away with it. To officially sanction them to go out and risk OTHER lives is unconscionable, and will most likely come back to haunt the Club sometime.

I'me not pleased at all having to be the one playing the devils advocate (Ok, ok - a$$hole) role in this arguement - it's an arguement that should not even have to be broached.

[Stan Clayton]

Richard, I've probably spent about as much time debating this issue with you as I'm going to, and obviously we have not convinced each other, so I suggest you write the CRB with your inputs to the rules.

In the meantime, anyone who gets a warm fuzzy from their current aluminum crush box is invited to download and watch this video of the tests University of Colorado ran on their F-SAE crush boxes. The ones they do on steel and aluminum structures are particularly enlightening.

Video Link

Edit: BTW, the energy being expended by the dropped weights equals a 660 lb (300 kg) car going less than 16 mph (23 fps). To compare to an F-1000, imagine adding 340 lbs and hitting something at a more realistic speed, say 60 MPH. Now you know why I describe the FF/FC-required "crushable structure" as more security blanket than foot protection.

[R. Pare]

In the meantime, anyone who gets a warm fuzzy from their current aluminum crush box is invited to download and watch this video of the tests University of Colorado ran on their F-SAE crush boxes. The ones they do on steel and aluminum structures are particularly enlightening.

Now you know why I describe the FF/FC-required "crushable structure" as more security blanket than foot protection.

Those "tests" were a joke - they resulted in exactly what any decently informed person would expect: THEY DEFORMED.

Gee...... Imagine that!

The unanswered question in the vids is this: What was the final load spike emparted to the table top compared to the load spike had there been no deformable structure at all?

Forget talking to all of the drivers who have been saved by these structures you deride (and I can give you a list with phone numbers) - ask yourself one question:

Is SOME mandated level of protection better than NONE?

If you answer 'SOME', then you are on the right track.

If you answer 'NONE', then you have no business making these sort of decisions.

Your choice.

[kbee00]

As I continue to read and re-read all the posts regarding this subject I can't help but bring up the comment by someone posting on this thread who said - "...manufacturers should be available to advise the rules writers to make sure they avoid the pitfalls that are always present when non-specialists try to write and interpret what is in fact a somewhat specialised engineering disipline..." I almost laughed out loud when I read this. Not out of disrespect to the author, but out of the shear arrogance towards those of us that took the time to try and put this class together. The problem I see here (and I sure hope others are struck by this notion too) is that those that need to have the rules written is such a way that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, has to be quantifiable are only doing so so that they can take the rules out to the nth degree (plus a fraction more perhaps) and that their competitor (and I mean business competitor) can be nailed to the wall when pushing a little too much past this point. The only real rules these guys see are the ones that equate to money. Don't let anyone BS you about that - that is the only game in town to those whose lively hoods depend on the rules and how they are written. I know it, they know it, and you had better know it too or those that wanted this class to be what I (and many otrhers) wanted it to be will be left out to dry. Let's get something straight here - there is no way, I mean absolutely no way, that rules can be written in such a manner that there is no room for interpretation. To suggest that a manufacturer is somehow more qualified to write rules regarding this class than those that initially conceived it is ludricrous. Talk about arrogant - geesh!! By gosh, don't let the stupid masses think they know what they are doing or someday there will be chaos!

The bickering could go on forever - and it probably will. I don't really care.

I have just sent another letter to the CRB requesting that they take a step back to look at what the founders of the class wanted and why this is a good thing for the racers, the club, and yes, even the manufacturers. I felt is was important to do so and I hope others that want this class to evolve as it was meant to be will also write to the CRB. Yes, it is time away from what we should be doing - building our cars. But if we don't, well I guess time will tell...

End of rant - I apologize to anyone that thought they might have been reading a well reasoned and insightful post .... I never promised you a rose garden.

Loren

[S Lathrop]

[SIZE=1]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.

How much do you believe in that definition? How do you see that the rules as proposed will assure that any of the converted cars will remain even vaguely competitive?

I for one would like to produce a F1000 that is converted from my FC and have it be as competitive as my FF and FC currently are. I believe in that definition. As a business model, building a basic car that can meet the needs of several classes allows me to offer that product at the lowest possible cost.

An ugly fact of the race car business is that the cars are sold at or near cost. No profit. Why, because it is the parts and service business that is profitable. We only make money when people race and consume parts.

I think that there are way more people who want to race than there are people who can build what they want to race. I suspect you are in that group. Like it or not, I think we (the collective manufacturers) are stuck with each other (you the reluctant, abused and disrespected cutomer). I also like to delude myself into believing that I serve my customers well. Who else in FF and FC has been able to get his customers on the podium at the runoffs almost every year for a dozen years with the same cars or spend time helping people with 30 year old cars go faster?

I have been in the business of streaching the rules for a lot of years, probably as many or more than you have been racing. I look at the F1000 rules and see that my present product is junk and so is every thing on the ground. I see all new cars that will be exploring new chassis construction ideas, new aerodynamics that are totally unique to F1000. Remember, no one else in the world is doing any thing like this. If that is what you want, recent DSR history replayed in F1000, then that is what you will get with these rules.

I am trying to get the rules back to what you, the designers, said you wanted. Which is an FC car appropriately modified to use a motor cycle engine. Or have I totally missed something?

What you are calling "shear arrogance" might be some insignificant insight coming from experience.

Like it or not you have involved the manufacturers in this class as our cars are converted. As it stands, I'm not comfortable with most of my cars in this class.

Tell me what your vision of F1000 is. Maybe I am too old and senile to understand what you guys have given us. If so I appologize. Or maybe you were only fooling when you added the phrase "and purpose-built motorcycle-powered tube frame chassis".

[/SIZE]

[S Lathrop]

Stan;

The nose box rule you think is meaningless, was proposes and authored by Adrian Reynard. At the time he had just finished the FIA crash tests on his F3 car. It was a fully instrumented test with crash bummies.

My experience with Citations has convinced me that it would be negligent to build a car without a nose box.

Rember that the nose box is only there to reduce the impact loading to the frame and driver to something below that which would cause injury. The Colorado vidio wasn't designed to prove or disprove the effectiveness of a nose box of any type. Without a frame underneath the nose box, nothing can be learned from that test.

[R. Pare]

"...manufacturers should be available to advise the rules writers to make sure they avoid the pitfalls that are always present when non-specialists try to write and interpret what is in fact a somewhat specialised engineering disipline..." I almost laughed out loud when I read this. Not out of disrespect to the author, but out of the shear arrogance towards those of us that took the time to try and put this class together. Loren

Like it or not, the fact is that the vast majority of people in an "official" capacity writing these rules are NOT specialists with 20-30 years of rules interpretation and design experience as race car engineers at levels up to and including the very top. This is no disrespect to anyone on the committees, but fact.

There are some good and well-intentioned people there, but..................

The results speak for themselves.

As an analogy, you may personally have some experience in home repair after hours from your daily job - a job that most likely has little or nothing to do with designing and constructing buildings.

Now you want to build a new home. Guess what you will most likely do almost immediately : Go consult with and hire an architect, a general contracter, plumbers, electricians, landscapers, etc.

Specialists.

That's no disrespect to your mental capabilities, but recognising the reality that you do not have the intimate knowledge necessary to know all the details involved in such a project.

I wouldn't personally go try to design an F1 car, an airplane, or a America's Cup yacht - I'd hire the specialists necessary.

Recognition of the limitations in my knowledge bank.

Designing rules for a class of reletively inexpensive and performance-limited race cars is no different.

The problem I see here (and I sure hope others are struck by this notion too) is that those that need to have the rules written is such a way that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, has to be quantifiable are only doing so so that they can take the rules out to the nth degree (plus a fraction more perhaps) and that their competitor (and I mean business competitor) can be nailed to the wall when pushing a little too much past this point. The only real rules these guys see are the ones that equate to money. Don't let anyone BS you about that - that is the only game in town to those whose lively hoods depend on the rules and how they are written. I know it, they know it, and you had better know it too or those that wanted this class to be what I (and many otrhers) wanted it to be will be left out to dry. Let's get something straight here - there is no way, I mean absolutely no way, that rules can be written in such a manner that there is no room for interpretation. To suggest that a manufacturer is somehow more qualified to write rules regarding this class than those that initially conceived it is ludricrous. Talk about arrogant - geesh!! By gosh, don't let the stupid masses think they know what they are doing or someday there will be chaos!

Loren

I'm happy for your sake that you live in such a fantasy land.

The object in any decent set of rules is that they be written in such a way that the designers AS WELL AS the competitors have at least an idea what the limits are. The nature of racing is that everyone - designers as well as drivers - want to at least have a chance of winning. As a result, the rules interpretation "envelope" gets stretched BY EVERYBODY over time - and car owners in this class will be no different.

As a manufacturer, it would be a ton simpler for me if all I had to do was quickly scribble up a design and know that I could produce it for the next 20 years unchanged and still be top-flight competitive. But, drivers always want to go faster than their competition, and would prefer to be able to run away and hide, so they always want their equipment to evolve to be faster than the next guy.

To that end, it helps everyone - tech inspectors included - if the limits have some means of measurement to quantify whether or not they have a chance in a protest, or to even have a proposed design change judged correctly beforehand - being disqualified by another drivers protest of your car is not fun, I would imagine, especially if the "fix" costs a few thousand dollars or loss of crucial points in a championship attempt.

The only rules that leave zero room (generally) for interpretation are those for spec classes. Since that is not what this class is desired to be, don't you think that it would be nice to have at least a vague idea how far away the limits are - even if those limits are somewhat fuzzy - before you plunk down a years salary for your new toy?

I can stay away from fuzzy - have had to do so for the last 20 years with the way a lot of SCCA rules are written. But how do you stay away from a fall into a pit where the edge has absolutely NO definition?

Don't you also think it would be nice to know that the guy who is about to T-bone you actually has a crushable structure in his nose cone, rather than a spear?

Guess what - spears can be legal if the some people have their way.

You might want to take a step back to get a better look at who is doing what to whom around here, and for what reasons.

[Stan Clayton]

Steve, it was good of you to mention the source and circumstances of our current FF/FC crushable structure rule. Thank you. However, it is a very long way from passing a "quantifiable and testable standard", as Mr Reyard had to do for his F3 car, to implying that the following statement confers the same protection for the driver of a randomly selected FC:

"There shall be a crushable structure, securely attached to the
front bulkhead, with a minimum cross section of 200 sq. cm (31
sq. in.), 40cm (15.75”) forward of the clutch and brake pedals
(not depressed) constructed of a minimum of eighteen (18) gauge
6061-T4 or equivalent aluminum."

FIA have for many years required that F3 crush boxes survive a 12 meter per second (~25 mph) impact test with an average deceleration not greater than 25 G's at their minimum "as raced" weight. FIA approve a specific nose box for a specific chassis, and any subsequent modification to the nose box or its attachment to the chassis, or the chassis itself requires testing be reaccomplished. Furthermore, unlike say, an upright, the box cannot subsequently be transfered to a different chassis design without retesting, since its behaviour cannot be accurately predicted.

The "one size fits all" approach in the FF rules simply does not tranfer to cars as narrow as the DB-1 to as wide as a Z-10 with any degree of predictability. Accelerometer tests done at the Vehicle Research Institute at Western Washington University show that simple aluminum columns catastrophically fail with a slight initial G-spike followed by near-zero resistance as the walls collapse, and then terminate with a massive spike to 3500+ psi during the last quarter inch of deformation. How a trapezium (the shape I see on most FF/FCs) might perform is anybody's guess.

Both FIA and US DoT agree that 60 G's is about the survival limit for frontal impacts (measured at the driver's chest/head). IIRC, FIA limit F3 cars to 25 G's average, and 60 G's for 3 miliseconds during nose box crash tests. To apply the F3 limit to an F-1000, a crush strucutre would need to maintain a constant 1000 lbs x 25 G's = 25,000 pounds of force during the deceleration. Dividing 25,000 by 32 sq. inches yields a constant 780 psi during the deceleration to maintain 25 G's. If 60 G's can kill the driver, that's 60/25*780 = 1875 psi, so an abrupt 3500 psi spike can't be good for the poor sod.

Finally, I'd like to address a couple of the points Richard makes above. First, IMO the videos are not a "joke". While they leave many questions unanswered, they also graphically illustrate the potential effects of relying on the TLAR method. I'm not implying that everyone should run out and fill some aluminum honeycomb with 2-part foam and wrap it in chicken wire to construct their foot boxes, but it should be equally clear that "common sense" structures may not work as well as one might think.

As to whether I support a "mandated" foot box, the answer is "no". They are not required in Formula Atlantic, DSR or CSR, all of which are faster than FF/FC, and I do not support their forced introduction to those classes, or in F-1000. Do I think they are a good idea? Absolutely! But I will not mandate something that might prove to be no more effective than a 6-pack of beer cans taped together (one of the VRI test configurations).

Furthermore, I will not impose a 20+ year old "standard" that has never been (AFAIK) subjected to any analysis or testing (much less in all its configurations), and that would render the FIA-approved composite front crush structures on the Gloria and the new Van Diemen illegal.

Regards, Stan

[Art Smith]

Dear Sirs:
this letter is being written to again urge you not forward to the BOD the draft F1000 rules published in the September Fastrack. while improvements were noted, there are still far too many serious problems with the draft to warrant forwarding the dcoument in its current form to the BOD. attached is a Microsoft Wrod document file version of the published September F1000 draft that includes an updated table and F1000 specific figure and has been annotated with both the required changes and the supporting rationale for the changes. in the annotated form I would recommend the draft be forwardd to the BOD.

Arthur E. Smith
artesmith@earthlink.net

1. [FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]
2. DefinitionA 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.
3. SafetyF1000 cars must comply with GCR Sections 17, 18, 19, and 20. Additional safety requirements are addressed in sections C and D.
4. 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:

1. Panel(s), minimum of either.060" [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2](heat-treated aluminum (6061-T6 or equivalent)) DELETE[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] 6061-T6 aluminum or [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2](eighteen (18) gauge) DELETE[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] 0.048" (18 gauge) ADD steel or 0.020" 6-4 Titanium ADD, attached outside of the main frame tubes.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] RATIONALE: all heat treated aluminums are not created equal from a protection perspective; include decimal thickness of steel for consistency; titanium offers more protection at lower weight and higher cost per pound
   [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]
2. 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).[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] The material used for the chassis braces in this area shall be at least equivalent to the roll hoop brace material. DELETE
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]RATIONALE:not objectively verifiable without first determining intent for inclusion of the material; (I have NO idea what the intent of the rule as written is so can not offer a verifiable alternative)
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]4. A stress-bearing floor pan/undertray is [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2](permitted)[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]DELETE[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] required ADD between the front bulkhead to the rear roll hoop bulkhead.
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]RATIONALE: unacceptable to delete safety requirements (find another way to appropriately define safety requirements existing high nose cars can be made compliant with; ie: the lower surface of the driver’s compartment shall have a stress-bearing panel on the outside of the frame of either .060" 6061-T6 aluminum or 0.048" (18 gauge) steel or 0.020" 6-4 Titanium)
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]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.
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 axis of symmetry of any symmetrical streamlining shall be within plus or minus five (5) degrees of the track surface as qualified and as raced. ADD
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]RATIONALE: prohibit symmetrical arifoils from being used for meaningful downforce

1. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]
2. There shall be a crushable structure, securely attached to the front bulkhead, with a minimum cross section of 200 square cm (31 square inches), 40cm (15.75") forward of the clutch and brake pedals (not depressed) constructed of a minimum of 0.048" (18 guage) 6061-T4 aluminum. ADD

[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]RATIONALE:[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]unacceptable to delete safety requirements
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]D. Bodywork and Airfoils

1. See table of dimensions. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2](Airfoils are a requirement for this class.)[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]DELETE[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] Wings and other airfoil devices are permitted in this class. ADD Forward-facing roll bar/roll cage bracing and required padding will not be considered in the cockpit opening dimensions shown in the table.
   [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]RATIONALE: not objectively verifiable; ie: the number and characteristics of the airfoils that are a requirement for the class are not specified
   [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]
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 [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2](is)[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]DELETE[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] shall be ADD located on the lower surface of the [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2](chassis) DELETE[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] car ADD (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 [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2](chassis) DELETE [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]car ADD (the surface licked by the air stream) shall be more than 2.54cm (1 inch) above the plane [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2](determined) DELETE[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] defined ADD 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 [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2](chassis) DELETE[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] car ADD may be below the plane [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2](determined) DELETE[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] defined ADD by the reference surface on a line perpendicular to that plane, except as specifically permitted herein. Compliance with these requirements shall be [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2](accomplished)[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]DELETE[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] verified ADD 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 [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2](chassis)[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] DELETE car ADD and may extend below the reference plane a maximum of 1 cm (0.394 inches) ADD.
   [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]RATIONALE: shall requires; car for chassis assures the actual lower surface licked by the air stream; limitted rub blocks with the club’s de facto standard language
   [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]
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.) DELETE[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] Diffusers are permitted [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2](behind the front of the rear tires) DELETE[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2].

[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]RATIONALE: not objectively verifiable, venturis is not defined; "behind the front of the rear tires" is in direct conflict with the preceeding flat bottom rule
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]>>>>>>>Recommendation: if something more than an objectively verifiable "flat bottom rule" is desired,
hire a consultant that knows what they’re doing and tell them what you want!! If you don’t have the budget for a consultant, a minimum of three manufactors or qualified members of the community should be tasked to draft an objectively verifiable expansion of the current falt bottom rule that accomplishes your written objective(s).
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]8. Movable aerodynamic devices, including aerodynamic skirts, are prohibited.

1. Engines

1. Motorcycle-based 4 cycle up to 1005cc. Motorcycle engines shall come from motorcycles where a minimum of 1000 motorcylce were sold in the United States two years prior to the date of use. ADD[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]RATIONALE: assures reasonable access for all and precludes instant obsolesence of the installed base
   [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]
2. Engine internals and compression ratio must remain stock. The competitor must possess an original factory manual for the engine to allow compliance verification. Counter balancers may be removed and their oil feed passages plugged.
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.
8. Oil coolers are unrestricted.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]
9. (Radiators and water pump are unrestricted.) DELETE[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2] The cooling system is unrestricted. ADD Radiators, if housed in or incorporating a cowl air-scoop deflector, shall comply with body regulations.

[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]RATIONALE:
May 2006 Fastrack – Item 1. Effective 11/1/06: Change section 17.1.6.B.4.d.20 as follows:
Cooling system unrestricted. (A liquid cooling system is mandatory, but radiator and water pump are unrestricted. DELETE. The radiator, if housed in or incorporating a cowl air-scoop deflector, shall comply with body regulations.

1. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]
2. Inlet RestrictorsThe air inlet system is unrestricted at this time. However, the CRB may require the use of an inlet restrictor at any time by publishing the requirements in FasTrack.
3. 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.

1. 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

1. 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.
   
5. The clutch is unrestricted.

1. 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. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2](Front A-arms shall be equipped with anti-intrusion bars to limit intrusion into the cockpit.) DELETE[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]

[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]RATIONALE: not objectively verifiable; the phrase anti-intrusion bars is not defined
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]
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.

1. SteeringUnrestricted.
2. Wheels and TiresThirteen (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.
3. Minimum weight

1. Minimum weight is 1000 lb

[/SIZE][/FONT]