F1000 CRB Rules Proposal

[R. Pare]

Actually, let me clarify the "spears will be legal" charge - it's not that they "may" be legal, but that they will have to be legal, if someone presents one and an attempt is made to turn them away for having an "unsafe" design.

Gee, Richard - are you nuts?

At least in this case, no.

The Club will have no choice if the lawyers reasoning is adhered to.

Assuming that the legal council is successful in pushing thru the practice of not officially sanctioning "safety" systems or equipment that has not been "quantified or tested", any substantially rigid structure in the nose area (where the crushbox would normally be) cannot be banned, for the simple reason that to do so then necessitates approval of its replacement, exactly against that legal practice.

To ban a structure necessitates that it be replaced by another, "more safe" design.

If that car is re-entered with a "better" design, just the act of allowing it to compete,
never mind any required sign-offs to the log book, means that that structure is officially approved - untested and unquantified.

That "more safe" design is now a defacto "approved" standard by which the legal system can judge liabilities in a lawsuit!

This sort of legal "logic" is exactly what the Club is setting itself up for, not just in this particular case, but for every case of disapproval of safety equipment followed by allowance of its replacement!

It also means that every other piece of untested and unquantified safety gear has to be dropped from the books.

And Stan, since you just don't seem to get it :

NO ONE IS PROPOSING THAT THERE BE A MANDATED PERFORMANCE STANDARD! THE REQUEST IS TO ONLY MAKE SURE THAT AT LEAST AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO HELP MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF A FRONTAL CRASH - EXACTLY WHAT THE FF/FC RULES DO NOW.

The FF/FC crushbox rules DO NOT imply any sort of performance standard, they only state that the PHYSICAL MAKEUP be a certain minimum.

And to allow glass/kevalr/honeycomb crushboxes, all that needs to be added to the rules is that they are allowed.

No performance specs, no assurances. Plain, simple English that has been in use for quite a while.

But much better than allowing nothing to be there at all.

[Charles Warner]

To ban a structure necessitates that it be replaced by another, "more safe" design.

Richard,

While I agree with the gist of your message and the intent, I can not let that red herring fly (if you'll forgive the mixed metaphors.) Who says anything that is banned must be replaced? That does not follow. Ergo, the rest of your argument that is based on that false premise is a non-player. You could ban wing end plates, for example, as they can cut tires and not replace them with alternatives.

Maybe we can stop picking at nits like nitpicking lawyers and try to see the forest.

One suggestion has been made that I feel deserves consideration. To be eligible for F1000 the chassis must already have been homologated by the Club. Any form of conversion kit would be fine, but the chassis must already be a homologated unit. That should remove a grteat deal of the issues we have already seen raised.

[R. Pare]

Charles:

I would agree, except for one problem - in this class, there HAS to be some structure up there to hold up the mandatory wings. Exactly what that structure is is irrelevant - the wing cannot float out in space all by itself!

Since that is the case, whatever form the replacement structure takes, it now has official sanction.

If the Club doesn't get smarter soon, they will back themselves into a corner that they cannot get out of!

And it is using exactly this sort of nit-picking that the lawyers will get huge settlements for themselves!

Your 'already homologated' suggestion has merit of a sort, if only that the only cars ever approved to run F1000 will most likely have the previously approved stuff we are arguing about. That, however, leaves two issues :

1 - The now-not-mandatory safety stuff can be removed or replaced with unsafe items.

2 - It ain't gonna take long to run out of decent cars to convert! Can you imagine a Lola 540 set up for this class? Yikes!

[Art Smith]

I applaud the effort and creativity in attempting to bridge the philosophical chasm; but how would getting a "purpose-built motorcycle-powered tube frame chassis" homologated work?? conversions look attractive in the near term but I'm guessing they're too heavy and have too much frontal area for a winged car with limitted torque................ I'll be very surprised if the widest wheels allowed are used at venues with anything approaching a straight.

Art
artesmith@earthink.net

[R. Pare]

Art:

You're right that that term would have to be dropped if cars approved were to be limited that way.

As to weight: While I don't have the weight difference data here in front of me, I believe that a car that is now at or near minimum will easily hit the 1000 mark. Go back and look at Sean's weights that he quoted.

And yes - wheel and bodywork widths will be jumping all over the place according to the needs of the track.

At least by the guys who have done their homework and can afford it!

[R. Pare]

On a lighter note:

Stan;

The nose box rule ... was proposed 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.

Steve:

Don't the Brits use "Pommies" for that sort of work?

Will I need to duck flying objects when I arrive at the shop tomorrow morning?

[Art Smith]

Richard-

dropping the term is one answer, but that doesn't address new frames designed from a clean CRT with 1-liter motorcycle engines in mind... hanging a bunch of stuff on a 1-liter frame to get it homoloated as a FF can't be the answer...................... can it?? I'm guessing there are more new 1-liter frames floating around waiting for the rules to settle-out than most people realize. the question in my mind is how many of them will be salvageable with the outcome; looks like the interests of the imports are being protected.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[R. Pare]

Art:

One of us isn't following the thread quite right, I think!

My response was originally to Charles' suggestion that ONLY already SCCA homologated chassis from FF, FC or whatever, be eligible.

Note to Stan:

If the Club wants to cover its butt as the lawyers wish, AND take care of my concerns, all that need be done is to add to the "crushable structures" and "anti-penetration" rules is that the structure requirements are a MINIMUM, in no way are an assurance of performance of the final structure, and that it is up to the competitor to provide a structure he/she is satisfied with (needs better wording than that, but you should be able to get my drift).

If you don't do that, there is no question that ALL reference to mandatory, but non-standadrized, safety equipment HAS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE GCR.

And the problem with that is that the Club has already an established record in mandated safety equipment, and any sudden deletions play right into the lap of liability issues you want to avoid.

What is forgotten by most people is that the first line of defense the Club has against any liability suits is the waiver. If the lawyers can get past that, the next line of defense should be a disclaimer of any safety performance guarantee of any equipment on any part of the car. For the most part, the responsibility of an item working correctly has been passed off onto the SFI, etc., wherever possible. By NOT using such a disclaimer, however, the Club is both tempting fate, and trying to sluff off any guarantees onto the manufacturers that build everything else you are using. If a lawsuit is ever successful in penetrating that responsibility barrier and hits a car manufacturer, you can kiss this sport goodby.

[Dave Gomberg]

From the September Fastrack (in the Submitted to the BoD for Approval section):

Item 8. Effective 1/1/07: Change section 11 Technical and Safety Inspection as follows:
In order to enter the race course at any time during an event, a vehicle shall display a Tech Sticker signifying successful completion of technical and safety inspection as prescribed in the following sections. [ Delete: Passing safety inspection and receiving a Tech Sticker is an indication that the car is safe to go on course. It is not a certification of legality.] Technical inspection assists event officials with determining, in their judgment, eligibility for participation in a SCCA sanctioned event. The technical inspection does not ensure, certify, or warrant that the vehicle or any part thereof is safe or totally and ultimately compliant with all applicable rules. The technical inspection does not in any way change the fact that the driver, the crew members, and the vehicle owner are ultimately responsible for the safety and operation of the vehicle and equipment. By conducting a technical inspection, SCCA and each of its directors, officers, employees, and officials, make no representations, warranties, or assurances that a technical inspection, including the review of any written information, will do any or all of the following:

- Detect every or any problem with a vehicle or a driver's personal equipment or clothing; or

- Detect every problem with rule compliance; or

- Prevent bodily injury, death, or personal monetary damage.

The participant agrees that the participant bears the ultimate responsibility at all times to ensure the safety of participant's vehicle, equipment, and clothing and compliance with all SCCA rules, regulations, and agreements, including but not limited to those contained in the GCR. Moreover, in the case of technical violations, the participant acknowledges, understands, and agrees that the participant is charged with full knowledge of every component of participant's vehicle and that even if a third party (for example, an engine builder) has caused the participant's vehicle to be noncompliant, the participant will still be responsible for and charged with any applicable violation and penalty.

[R. Pare]

Hooray! Somebody beat me to it! This is a good step forward in the legal liability concerns.

My apologies for missing that - it would have save a lot of hurranging Stan on my part!

NOW can we please get the wording back in requiring that there be crushable structures?

[Stan Clayton]

I applaud the effort and creativity in attempting to bridge the philosophical chasm; but how would getting a "purpose-built motorcycle-powered tube frame chassis" homologated work?? conversions look attractive in the near term but I'm guessing they're too heavy and have too much frontal area for a winged car with limitted torque................ I'll be very surprised if the widest wheels allowed are used at venues with anything approaching a straight.

Art
artesmith@earthink.net

Art,

Getting a chassis homologated is quite simple and straight forward...one downloads the forms, fills them out, takes a few pics, and sends it in to the Club (call 800-770-2055 and speak to Jeremy Thoennes or John Bauer for details). Since purpose-built chassis are permitted under the proposal, so long as the chassis conforms to the proposed rules and the GCR in general, there should be no issues getting a new chassis homologated.

The proposal mentioned by Charles Warner is interesting, but has one glaring loophole aside from the issue of chassis availability. One could simply design, build and homologate a new DSR, for instance, and then rehomologate or dual homologate it as an F-1000, thereby circumventing the intent of the idea. So why insist on using only pre-homologated chassis? Furthermore, I cannot see the BoD approving a new class that did not permit "new" cars. From what I've heard, they see this class as a way of reinvigorating formula racing in SCCA, not just as a dumping ground for no longer competitive FC's.

Richard, thanks for the note.

Regards, Stan

[Art Smith]

Stan-

thanks. in the context of Charles suggestion, new cars/frames was the
question. if that goes, so goes the question on homologation as we'd
then be back to the ususal drill.

given the current state of the draft and associated level of fun; any
thoughts of homologation for me will have to wait for a BOD approved
set of rules I've had a chance to analyse in detail.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Rick Silver]

Gentlemen,

Having watched this discussion in some detail, after much thought I have concluded that I just don't understand the point of this proposed class. A few points that perhaps can be repsonded to:

1) F1000 is suppose to solve high engine costs. That was the point of allowing Zetec in FC. Rennie's engine costs in the other thread show Zetec near MC engine cost. I roadraced motorcycles for years. We rebuilt our "stock" engines every year for about $2500.

2) We added FM some years ago. That took one group of new and existing drivers, then we added FSCCA, supposed to be an affordable winged class, that took more new and existing (FC was the #1 contributer) drivers. Both of these classes appear totally stalled. Now we are going to add F1000 which WILL take some new and existing drivers. What is the point of this?? The Zetec should address the engine cost issues, 7000-8000 miles per rebuild.

3) Current and older FC cars will NOT be competitive if this class is ever worth racing in (read competitive), The proposed rules allow chassis 50% wider (you WILL get more downforce), bigger rims, updated calipers and rotors, the weight balance will be way off (200 lb lighter driver train). Together these are very expensive set of major upgrades.

4) The proposed engine rules are a disaster. The SIR, as an example, takes a 170 HP motor and makes it a 160 HP, but it takes the 165 HP and makes it 155 HP. It does not equilibrate the motors. The current "no SIR rule", WILL result in an engine of the month because 3 or 4 HP is a HUGE advantage in 160 HP machines, if the class ever becomes competitive.

All this class does is further dilute the existing classes. Let the Zetec in FC have a chance to go forward for those who want affordable engines in winged cars. The original proposal seemed focused on a place to race older FC cars with lower cost engines. That is not the final result. This will become a high dollar open wheeled DSR class, which is not sustainable because the guys with a big enough budget go FA racing or do something "safer" like DSR and CSR.

-Rick

[Larry]

Rick, I'm with you most of the way. F1000 as presented will get very expensive very quickly, and we already have FA, FC, FF, F500, FV, FSCCA, FM, FS and in many regions we have CF and CFC. Without debating why we have this divergence, these classes ought to be combined into about half as many classes...but what SCCA really needs is an inexpensive (when compared to FC or FSCCA) entry class that uses a modern engine of around 125 hp that will be both reliable and long-lasting. The success of FM was due to the selection of an inexpensive, relialbe, bullet-proof engine. It certainly wasn't due to technology (outboard rear suspension circa 1966).

FV engines have gotten nearly as expensive as a Kent or Pinto, so that's not the answer. There was an old saying "What the country really needs is a good 5-cent cigar." Well, what the SCCA need is "A good $25K formula car!" The Hewland and Pinto/Kent add up to more than $20K, so if you agree that a $25K formula car would be a good answer, you've got to look elsewhere for an engine/gearbox.

Larry Oliver

[Dennis McCarthy]

It's funny what a simple idea has morphed into.
Van Diemen built a MC powered car several years ago, they couldn't give them away.
As I recall a few of them ended up on EBAY.
I doubt Richard and Steve will end up tooling up and build 100 new cars,
I could be wrong but I'd take that wager way before I'd buy a lottery ticket
No matter how whizzy any new car may be, Larry is correct, it's still all about price.

[R. Pare]

Gentlemen,
3) Current and older FC cars will NOT be competitive if this class is ever worth racing in (read competitive), The proposed rules allow chassis 50% wider (you WILL get more downforce), bigger rims, updated calipers and rotors, the weight balance will be way off (200 lb lighter driver train). Together these are very expensive set of major upgrades.

..... The original proposal seemed focused on a place to race older FC cars with lower cost engines. That is not the final result. This will become a high dollar open wheeled DSR class, which is not sustainable because the guys with a big enough budget go FA racing or do something "safer" like DSR and CSR.

-Rick

Rick:

Thank you for reiterating what Steve and I have argued from the moment we read all the way through the proposed rules!

While a car of this type has the potential of being quite fun, I too doubt that it will have a positive impact on the total formula car numbers in the long run, if for no other reason that, as the rules currently stand, the chassis costs will skyrocket as the desired level of competition is raised, and that price will definetely be at least that of a current DSR.

However, IF the club were to mandate that the class stay that of Regional Only, then the costs will most likely stay to that of converted cars - it just flat isn't worth the time and expenditure to build a bespoke regional-class-only car. However, I have no clue as to how long the class will last at that restricted level, and won't even venture a guess!

The one recent development that gives me some hope that National FC might just stay alive a while longer is that one of the Pro series is going back to inviting in Club spec cars. The original Pro series had this feature, and it was largely responsible for FCs' popularity in the Club - 20 -30 used cars filtered into the Club every year for many years. Once that inter-connection was severed, BOTH series suffered, and we are where we are today.

Quite frankly, the best thing the Club can do to ensure its relevance and long term viability is to somehow get one or more of the existing lower-level winged classes set up as a support series in one of the big-boys arenas - I for one am tired of private, for-profit enterprises elbowing the Club out of what few spotlights are available.

[Charles Warner]

Hooray! Somebody beat me to it! This is a good step forward in the legal liability concerns.

My apologies for missing that - it would have save a lot of hurranging Stan on my part!

NOW can we please get the wording back in requiring that there be crushable structures?

Richard,

Do we have to specify the nose boxes as "crushable structures" or "safety structures?" Why not "allow" nose boxes forward of the front bulkhead for whatever designed purpose instead of mandating some sort of structure? If we mandate a structure then the intent and purpose must be clear. I realize this leaves the onus of the safety issue on the driver or constructor. We do not need to specifically designate them as items for these purposes. We would, IMO, have to designate or mandate certain contruction techniques so as to preclude the "spear" system of steel tubing with ally panels rivited to it. That would be the forte of the engineers among us.

[Bob Wright]

Richard...You're on the money re life in FC. I would make one minor comment about "inviting in club spec (FC's)". The F2000 Championship Series specs are SCCA FC Rules. If it qualifies for FC, you can run it. We have made (for good or bad) accomodations for the CooperSeries Zetecs this year, but our series was specifically designed to align Club and Pro specifications on the FC (F2000) model. We will continue that in '07.

I echo Rick Silver's comments about too many classes diluting the open wheel driver pool.

[jonbaytos]

As Dennis points out price is going to carry the day in the end.I also think that it will come down to ease of use,and the cost of use.I would wager that if Lee Stohr builds what I think he will build,and Elan/Van Deimen decide to release the chassis that we have been testing here at the Manatee Mile,and Gloria market there car the way I think,you will see a very popular class.40,000 to 45,000 all in will be a bargain.We have put folks in both chassis and the FC-Zetec does not rate a second glance once they have sampled the Formula 1000.There is really no comparison in terms of the fun factor.On top of this if we had run the same amount of mileage in the FC/Zetec that we run in the F-1000 we would have used 3 sets of pads,bled the brakes a few times,and maybe the clutch,some ratios and dog rings,and probably a starter motor.Not to mention lugging around the dreaded jump battery,as well as blowing out a couple of bottom side pod floors.On the 1000,we have literally just put fuel and air.If the two are put next to each other on price the 1000 is going to win,as the FC,is going to cost 15,000 to 20,000 more.
I don't think that FC will ever die but it will become as Formula Ford has for a very select crowd.Are there too many classes,sure there are but at some point someone will get it right,and the mass will move.
It should also be noted that under the Skirmants control FSCCA is moving new chassis at the moment as well.
As far as the Pro Series making FC happen,one must recall that in those days teams were making money in the Pro-Series and could suffer as much as 50% depreciation over 6 months and not bat an eye,thus providing cheap chassis into the market which at the time had no competition.This has been gone for a long time.You do not have many pro teams let alone ones that can buy new chassis,even if they were to sell there old ones.like it or not formula Mazda both old and new has put clamps on FC.
The current VD FC chassis design will be 10 years old next year,and will need to some areas in safety,and maintenance dealt with in the redesign.So all will be looking at what is new,and what is obselete.Formula Continental,Formula 1000,Formula SCCA.Maybe it is the perfect time for F-1000.Maybe someone will start a new F-1000 / Pro- Series,and things will be rolling.
Van Diemen did build a MC engined car but after a 6 sales we were told to stop,for legal reasons.There was'nt even a class for them then,but the interest in the chassis was intense.

[R. Pare]

Charles:

I can't at the moment comment on all the legal implications of what wording we end up using - it has just come to my attention that there is more than meets the eye legaly in everything that has transpired. I'll have to get better details and get my comments to the BOD and CRB.

However, as to your 'box question:

My take on this is that at a minimum the Club HAS to mandate that there be a crushable structure in the nose - the history is already set in stone in the parent class, and that alone has a lot of legal ramifications that you really don't want to test.

While the rules do not actually define what a "crushable structure" is, the current FF rules mandate that the minimum physical makeup be that it is made out of aluminium of a minimum thickness and heat treat spec, and that there be a bulkhead of x sq. inches placed a certain distance forward. This minimum physical spec was based on Adrian Reynards just-completed sled tests, and were discussed in a CRB meeting when the '86 rules were being written. This minimum spec does not in any way imply that a specific performance level be reached - the wording is about physical makeup only.

The original reasons behind the mandated bulkhead area was for alignment with what-was-being-considered side crush structures to enhance side penetration protection of the car styles being built at that time.

This purposely mandated spec is supposed to mean that you cannot make up a tube frame structure and call it your "crushable structure", since, while you could argue all day that it has the capability of "crushing", it is not made to a generally acceptable construction style suitable for that purpose - ie - the mandated alu with bulkhead. Unfortunately, the spec does not in fact state that this aluminium be "sheet" as opposed to alu tubes of the same minimum wall thickness, but so far that I know of no one has been stupid enough to test that oversight. In re-writing things, I would want to see that get corrected ( ie - specify "sheet").

And you are right - it gets rid of my concern about spears in the front of cars.

At this time, I have no idea if changing the wording from "crushable" to "safety" means anything at all legally. I would doubt that it does, but I most certainly could be wrong.

It might be more advisable to change the wording to "attenuator", or maybe better yet, "impact attenuator" as that has a specific connotation that I don't think a lawyer can twist all out of proportion. However, as a backup, I would keep in the alu sheet and bulkhead wording to make sure that tube structures don't somehow get in.

The next problem that we face here is the fact that as BOTH the FF/FC rules and the new F1000 rules are written, composite construction IS NOT LEGAL! While it may indeed have become standard practice, their use in fact has never been legalised with wording in the GCR, and any decent engineer will just laugh at you if you suggest that the aluminium honeycomb everyone uses, and how it is oriented, is "equivalent" to the alu sheet spec. I'm not sure what the legal implications are here, but it would be advisable to get that oversite fixed, I would think - just insert the appropriate wording allowing that construction method.

Another potential legal problem that has been ignored over the years, as far as I know : Were in fact all of the DB1's out there homologated prior to January 1, 1986? If not, every one of them whos' homologation papers were issued after that date is blatantly illegal, as they do not meet the '86 construction requirements, and as such, I believe, potentially a massive legal liability to the Club.

I hope this answer hasn't totally confused or discouraged you!

[RussMcB]

<snip> Van Diemen did build a MC engined car but after a 6 sales we were told to stop,for legal reasons.There was'nt even a class for them then,but the interest in the chassis was intense.

There is a 2003 Honda powered VD on ebay right now. It made me wonder why VD couldn't quickly revamp that model for F1000. I think VD still offers a cycle powered car on their web site, right? Is it the same as the FSCCA but with bike power?

Just curious.

[Charles Warner]

Richard,

I'll not be discouraged. I'd just like for all of us to come to an agreement on excatly which way we are headed so all of us can channel the considerable energies out here towards a common goal.

I'm not sure I follow the logic that we have to mandate something of a crushable structure in the class as we do not require them in atlantic (although most have some sort of nose box.) I'm certainly not saying they are not valuable, nor do I believe anyone else is making a similar allusion. However, the wording must be chosen carefully. Your choice of "attenuator" might be the ticket.

While there is a body of knowledgte relative the efficacy of both front and rear crush structures, I believe our basic problem area is the multitude of chassis we deal with. For Indy lights/F3/IRL/etc. the cars are all designed with the mandated crush structure in mind (either through chassis testing or the adopting of spec cars.) Neither of those situations can occur in Club racing. I'm sure we can all work something out.

[Stan Clayton]

FIA call it an "impact absorbing structure", while "impact attenuator" is the term used in Formula SAE, which strikes me as the better choice.

[R. Pare]

Charles:

The rules for Atlantic, CSR, and DSR were all laid down way before there was much consideration at all for safety issues. At the time that the '86 rules were written, the manufacturers and the CRB were realising that something need to be done in FF because of injury problems, and had the opportunity to address that with the all-new rules. Unfortunately, their addition to Atlantic and others was somehow overlooked. Had I been building those class cars, I most definetely would have been aware of this oversite, and would most certainly have requested that the CRB add them in! I actually DID request that composite nose boxes be allowed in FC/FF, but was turned down!

I believe that the Pro Atlantic rules in force during the tenure of at least the lastest Ralts required crushable structures, as well as the current Swift spec rules - it's been a while since I last looked at their book.

The one issue that you need to sit down with the SCCA legal council and talk about is the rammifications of allowing a decrease in the safety standards. The Club has a track record of continual improvement in this regard - though not always as fast as some would like, and not across the board in all classes - but a history nonetheless that has some legal bearing, I believe.

As a manufacturer, there are legal implications to me if I design a new car for whatever class, and don't at least attempt to build it safer than the last model. The "standards" imposed are strictly my own, but are based on "best industry practice" and the limitations of my knowledge, skills, and budget. If I put out a car that I knew, and a lawyer could prove, wasn't built to at least as high a standard as my previous model, I could be in deep doo-doo.

All the legal stuff aside, to me personally it is unconsionable to create a class and not keep at least the same minimum safety standards - never mind upgrade them to levels that experience has taught us as being better. - ie - things like more side protection layers, etc.

The "logic" behind mandating that there be an "attenuator" ( I'll start using that word now), and some sort of construction requirement is to do a few basic things:

1 - It makes sure that there is an attenuator actually in place on every car.

2 - It preserves the "history" of imposed safety standards so as to hopefully prevent any legal problems.

3 - It makes sure that the "attenuator" has at least a chance of actually attenuating impact energy by not allowing too-rigid structures - such as triangulated steel tube frames.

Nowhere in this logic is the goal, stated or otherwise, of assuring actual performance in a crash.

The goal of the Club should also be to ensure that "new" classes are build to more stringent safety requirements, or at least not to requirements lower than previously required. It does not have to mandate specific performance requirements - as Stan stated earlier, that can get way too expensive and impossible to enforce - but only make damned sure that the cars have the equipment in place, and that they cannot be of a construction style that is almost sure to be as dangerous as no having no equipment at all.

Make sense yet?

[Marshall Mauney]

There was an old saying "What the country really needs is a good 5-cent cigar." Well, what the SCCA need is "A good $25K formula car!" The Hewland and Pinto/Kent add up to more than $20K, so if you agree that a $25K formula car would be a good answer, you've got to look elsewhere for an engine/gearbox.

We have a $25K formula car - the F500. For $20K new you get the engine (stock-only rules), clutches (tranny), carbon fiber body, tube frame, basic datalogging, etc - enough to go racing and be front-row competitive.

The trouble is, you DON'T get shocks, springs, diff, shifter, and wings. There's $10K right there.

How do you get to $25K for a factory-new winged formula car with tube frame, pushrod suspension and open rules? I'm having trouble seeing it; $35-40K seems more likely for a track-ready example, even with the bike engine/tranny.

[R. Pare]

I'll run the risk here of being overly redundant on the difference between mandating a certain style of attenuator construction verses mandating a certain performance of that structure. The analogy is akin to building a house.

If you are to build a house, you first need to look up the basic construction materials and minimum required floor area that are required in that community. Let's keep it simple and say only that the house has to be built out of kiln-dried 2x4s, 3/4" CDX plywood sheathing, and has to be 1000 sq or larger.

THAT"S the aluminium and bulkhead requirements for our basic attenuator structure.

Now let's say that the house is required by law to be able to withstand 150 MPH winds from various directions, coupled with earthquake displacements of 3 inches at 1.5 hz. for 10 seconds.

THAT's a performance standard.

And we are NOT stating any performance standards in our attenuator requirements as I've outlined.

[Rennie Clayton]

Richard,

I haven't noticed any confusion as to the difference between style and performance stipulations for crush structures in the rules, aside from yours with regards as to whether people "get it" or not. Trust me, people understand the difference, whether you think they do or not.

Part of the issue with the current crush structure rules, in my opinion, is that they don't mandate any of the other critical aspects of impact attenuation. I mean, I buy that you can possibly make a crush structure out of the materials specified, but to borrow your house analogy, if there isn't an adequate foundation attachment to the house, it's going to blow away in a stiff breeze. It doesn't stipulate what the cross section must be at the mounting flange, or that it must taper at a linear or other rate, or how the individual sheets of the structure should be joined, at what intervals or by what means, or how the structure should be fastened to the chassis, how the structure should be reinforced locally at the mounting points, and the nature of reinforcement of the chassis at the point of attachment, etc.

You say that at least the current rules afford some level of safety. I would submit that based on the above critical omissions, they assure no level of safety whatsoever - there are too many critical questions left unanswered, and you are therefore back to leaving the level of safety up to the discretion of the designer / builder, well-intentioned or not, which is exactly where you would be if you remove the requirement for a crush structure.

To wit: I can build a "crush structure" out of a single sheet of aluminum, wrapped into an open-ended box, with a couple of pop rivets along the seam, and "solidly" attached to the chassis with 4 10/32 screws at each corner tapped directly into a frame rail. I've met the rules, but in your honest engineering opinion, am I really any safer?


Cheers,
Rennie

[R. Pare]

Rennie;

I'll have to disagree in that it has taken over a week and way to many posts to get certain people away from declaring that simply by stating what the basic materials are to be, and the size and placement of a bulkhead, that we are somehow mandating an "unquantified and untested" performance standard.

Or declaring that not mandating performance standards means that there is going to be no protection at all.

The "standards" we've employed for 20+ years now have NEVER implied any sort of performance level, and for some to keep implying that they do is ludricous.

The level of safety provided by the crush box has ALWAYS been left up to the skills, concern, and intentions of the designer, and nothing will be any different here.

Would I want to have a crash with your theoretical box? Not really, especially if I have a choice of something better. However, that said, I've seen some pretty severe crashes with boxes of almost exactly the same construction and mounting as you described actually do an admirable job of keeping the frame intact! Go figure.

I've also seen some boxes fail at way too low a speed for the volume they encompassed. Shame on the designer for those.

Do the current open-ended box rules afford some level of safety compared to no box at all? Damned right they do! Even one empty beer can glued to the front bulkhead imparts an increase over nothing. Not much for sure, but it would still be measureable with good instrumentation.

Thankfully a single beer can doesn't meet the current material requirements! I can see the crash damage repair scrambles being done on Saturday nights - "Hey, Bubba! I need you to drink these 2 six-packs RIGHT NOW!"

The objective of safety equipment isn't only for the protection of the driver in that particular car, but also for the protection of others that it might tangle with.

The assurance of some level of safety by mandating a particular type of construction is in the fact that you then cannot use a heavily triangulated steel tube structure that comes to a point at its tip to hold up your wing. That structure might, given exactly the right circumstances, collapse nicely and absorb some energy if the driver hits a concrete wall, but I wouldn't place a very large wager on it!

However, that stiff, pointed, spear-like structure is FOR SURE going to go right thru the side panels and then straight through the driver of the car it is T-boning!

And that sort of spear structure is what making NO construction requirements will allow! Whether or not someone would be that foolish is up for grabs!

I'd rather get broadsided by a car with no box at all, than one with a spear sticking out front - at least then my sidepods and radiator have a chance of absorbing a portion of the load.

And, to state it for the unpteenth time : Keeping the same sort of material requirements and bulkhead placement will preclude use of that sort of spear structure.

I'd suggest that you go back and re-read my comments on the potential legal issues we are dealing with here. It is these legal issues that PRECLUDE us from mandating a performance standard, but at the same time FORCE you to keep the mandated equipment requirements at or above the current levels.

Until everyone understands all of these complexities, I really cannot think of anything else to add that could be helpful.

[S Lathrop]

Nose boxes aside. Could someone explain how you are suspose to support the front wing with any thing other than an extension of the frame?

If you were to build a composite nose box, what do you use to construct it ?

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....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.

I must be missing something but I don't see that you can use anything but fiberglass and you sure can't hang the wing on it.

How does the nose cone of an current VD comply with the F1000 rules or FF/FC rules for that matter?

For the wing to work, it will generate stress on the chassis. Thus it must be supported by the frame. I don't think that wings are in the list of suspension and engine components for which any type of bracket is allowed.

Are these rules written for converted FF and FC or are they deliberately vague to allow imported cars new market in the US. Is it only American built cars that have to comply with the GCR?

Help Stan! Seen enough Loren?

[Rennie Clayton]

Richard,

With due respect, I have no need to re-read your posts on the subject, I've already been through them. We are talking at cross purposes, that is all I can really say. The specification of a particular construction method that will provide "assurance of some level of safety", as you put it, is, in fact, an unquantified performance standard. Whether you like it or not, it's an implicit declaration of an unquantified level of safety. So, to the extent that you feel that you need to hit everybody over the head with your observations and opinions, I'm sure the feeling is mutual that you have missed the counter-points. Entirely.

Anyway, why the insinuation that everybody is stupid unless they "understand the complexities of the situation" according to your own specific logical path? Sheesh.


Steve,

Why can't wings be mounted to bodywork? A sidepod will generate stress on the chassis too, albeit in a different manner to a wing, and nobody seems to complain that they are attached to undertrays and chassis panels. For that matter, I see a lot of composite wing end plates out there in FC-land supporting the rear upper wing elements, would those not be illegal as well according to your line of reasoning?


Cheers,
Rennie

[Charles Warner]

Charles:

The goal of the Club should also be to ensure that "new" classes are build to more stringent safety requirements, or at least not to requirements lower than previously required. It does not have to mandate specific performance requirements - as Stan stated earlier, that can get way too expensive and impossible to enforce - but only make damned sure that the cars have the equipment in place, and that they cannot be of a construction style that is almost sure to be as dangerous as no having no equipment at all.

Make sense yet?

Richard,

I can assure you I follow your thought processes. However, I do not accept all of your personal premises, such as the one above. That might be one of your personal goals, and one which is admirable, but to state this as fact is not proper.

With all the pissing & moaning about nitnoid items and personal definitions about what standards to use and unquantifiable performance criteria and what is or is not a stress-bearing panel and what can be composite and what is a venturi and who has a flat bottom we are masking the real issues here that need to be solved before the CRB puts out the final rules for the class. Let's lay down our egos and determine what the real issues are instead of bickering about definitions. If the Club establishes a certain rule set and some manufacturers don't agree with them then they don't have to build a chassis.

We already have several guys who have indicated their displeasure and disappointmnent in the fact that it appears the rules will not follow the process of providing a relatively inexpensive place to play with converted older FC cars and the basic cost of being competitive will be driven way up due to purpose built cars selling for northwards of $40k. Yes, Richard, I read your diatribe regarding ECON 101 and "if they buy it I will build it." In fact, if you build it someone will always come out and pony up the bucks to be the fastest. IMO the only way to provide some relief from this escalation is to somehow limit the initial costs.

[RussMcB]

IMO the only way to provide some relief from this escalation is to somehow limit the initial costs.

Charlie, I'd argue against that point. My firm belief is the bast way to lower the costs of a class is to limit the advantage someone gets by spending gobs of power. I think this is why the SIR idea is popular (to some people). Someone could spend gobs of money on an engine but will not be gobs faster than a stock engine.

[Charles Warner]

Charlie, I'd argue against that point. My firm belief is the bast way to lower the costs of a class is to limit the advantage someone gets by spending gobs of power. I think this is why the SIR idea is popular (to some people). Someone could spend gobs of money on an engine but will not be gobs faster than a stock engine.

Russ,

As you know, the engine is only one aspect of go-fast. We can not control how much someone spends. Even with an SIR I would bet a deep-pocketed-racer could have Arnie find another 3-5 hp. The major issue as I see it is the converted older FC cars versus a brand new purpose designed car. The older car can not compete, thereby disenfranchising the group of racers the class was supposed to rescue.

[R. Pare]

Rennie:

You are stuck in a thought process loop that is somehow keeping you from seeing the obvious. Maybe, like with a lot of things in life, this is actually too simple!

1 - Specifying the minimum material makeup of a structure IN NO WAY is specifying a performance level, at least as far as any engineer or lawyer is concerned - it is strictly a guide as to where to start and what to stay away from.

2 - The "minimal assurance of safety" that is promoted by this material starting point is to make sure that rigid, pointed spears do not get used as structures in this part of the car. It has NO other meaning or implication, up to and including that it actually absorbs impact in a satisfactory manner.

3- NOT specifying that there be an "impact attenuator" and/or the minimal material makeup will prevent you from demanding that a blatantly dangerous spear structure be replaced.

4 - NOT specifying that there be an impact attenuator on the front of the car is a step backwards from established practice in the parent class - and almost assuredly a legal no-no.

To go back to the house analogy:

1 - Saying that there must be an "impact attenuator" on the front of the car is analogous to a requirement that to own a parcel of land you have to put a "family home" on it.

2 - The "family home" requirement means that you cannot put an office building or church there - neither is a "family home". The "attenuator" requirement means that you cannot put a substantially rigid "non-attenuator type" structure there.

3 - Stating that the impact attenuator has a minimum material requirement of .050 alu sheet "or equivalent aluminium" means that you cannot make it out of steel tube - steel tube is not "equivalent aluminium" - and is analogous to a a requirement that the house be a 2x4 "or equivalent wood" stick structure, not mud and straw or steel.

I'm running out of analogies!

If you don't understand what I'm trying to explain now, then I give up - I've wasted way too much valuable production time on something that should really be self explanatory - this is way too simple to have caused such confusion!


Charles:

If you don't think that there is value to the Club in maintaining at a minimum the current safety requirements, then I suggest that you go confer with an injury litigation lawyer - your mind will be changed rather quickly!

" Yes, Richard, I read your diatribe regarding ECON 101 and "if they buy it I will build it." In fact, if you build it someone will always come out and pony up the bucks to be the fastest. IMO the only way to provide some relief from this escalation is to somehow limit the initial costs."

And just EXACTLY what in the hell do you think Steve and I have been arguing the goal of the rules should be from the beginning?

I give up.

[S Lathrop]

Steve,

Why can't wings be mounted to bodywork? A sidepod will generate stress on the chassis too, albeit in a different manner to a wing, and nobody seems to complain that they are attached to undertrays and chassis panels. For that matter, I see a lot of composite wing end plates out there in FC-land supporting the rear upper wing elements, would those not be illegal as well according to your line of reasoning?


Cheers,
Rennie

I guess you are right. The wings are just part of body work along with the nose and anything goes. So what passes for a nose box just to keep the stewards happy if some one protests?

If the wings are part of the body work, then the material limitations for chassis construction and stressed panels do not apply to body work. The only the limitations for body work are applicable to an item associated with body work.

I support my rear wings with wood and aluminum structures. The last I checked wood was not on the list of inappropriate materials.

Are the rules only susposed to apply to American manufactured cars? Imported cars only have to have the appearence of complying with the rules.

I think I am just reading the rules as they are written. It must be an old age thing that my understanding of the language has not kept up with the times. It may also have something to due with scars left from past protest battles, won and lost.

Thank you for you help.

[RussMcB]

Russ,

As you know, the engine is only one aspect of go-fast. We can not control how much someone spends. Even with an SIR I would bet a deep-pocketed-racer could have Arnie find another 3-5 hp. The major issue as I see it is the converted older FC cars versus a brand new purpose designed car. The older car can not compete, thereby disenfranchising the group of racers the class was supposed to rescue.

Let me try to make my point in a different way. Let's say you've got a low buck racer with a '96 Van Dieman. Let's call him Sean. After he's converted his Pinto car to bike power, let's say he has $20,000 invested. He's got a very fast and fun car for much less than any other SCCA class car. He has a good chance of running for overall wins in SCCA regional races.

Let's say Sean gets a new competitior who has lots of money. The competitor buys the new F1000 chassis from XYZ Co. for $40,000 and he spends $10,000 - $12,000 to have Arnie get him 3-5 hp.

Can Sean compete against this guy? Maybe. Sean's a pretty good driver. The 96 VD with some updates and tuning isn't a bad car.

I KNOW that Sean would be happy to have a car that isn't too far off the pace from a $50,000+ car. He's also pretty happy about having a small investment in his drivetrain. He's not as worried about an engine problem because he can replace it pretty cheaply. He's racing without worrying about his $10,000 - $12,000 engine. That's got to be worth a lot towards racing value.

There is a lot of satisfaction doing well against someone spending much more money than you.

I agree 100% that you can never limit big spending except maybe with a claimer rule or spec parts, sealed engines, etc., BUT, you can write rules that will discourage spending and/or limit the advantage of spending big bucks.

[Stan Clayton]

Do the current open-ended box rules afford some level of safety compared to no box at all? Damned right they do! Even one empty beer can glued to the front bulkhead imparts an increase over nothing. Not much for sure, but it would still be measureable with good instrumentation.

Does the present FF/FC crush structure provide some level of protection? Yes, but the real question is; does it provide enough to mandate it for F-1000? Especially in light of advances made in impact attenuation over the past two decades, my answer has to be "no".

One beer can, Richard? Who are you kidding? Sure, a beer can provides some attenuation, in the same sense that with good enough instrumentation, one could show that a tissue paper provides some attenuation. I don't have any results for a single beer can, but I do for a 6-pack of empty soda cans, glued and taped together.



Looking at the detail graph, one can see that there is a small initial spike of resistance, about equal to half a G for a few thousanths of a second, before dropping back down to near zero for the next 3 and a half inches of the cans' five-inch height. Resistance passes 1 G at about 3.75" of compaction, reaches lethal levels an eighth of an inch later, and then spikes to twice the lethal limit as the cans are compacted enough to begin acting like solids (6061-T4 aluminum alloy has a compression elasticity of about 10.2-million psi). In practice, the chassis typically buckles at its weakest point before reaching a lethal limit in a small formula car.

Essentially the entire force of the impact would transfer directly to the chassis, so no, a beer can does not offer any significant foot protection.

Regards, Stan

[formulasuper]

I know nearly everyone is against it, however a $30,000 claiming rule would protect the original FC/motorcycle engine conversion owners from being out dollared by the guy that has the money to buy a $50-80k car.

[Charles Warner]

Charles:

If you don't think that there is value to the Club in maintaining at a minimum the current safety requirements, then I suggest that you go confer with an injury litigation lawyer - your mind will be changed rather quickly!

" Yes, Richard, I read your diatribe regarding ECON 101 and "if they buy it I will build it." In fact, if you build it someone will always come out and pony up the bucks to be the fastest. IMO the only way to provide some relief from this escalation is to somehow limit the initial costs."

And just EXACTLY what in the hell do you think Steve and I have been arguing the goal of the rules should be from the beginning?

I give up.

Richard,

At which point did I indicate I felt that way? You have a penchant for assuming others feel a certain way when they don't agree 100% with your premises.

As for costs, I have not seen any real discussions regarding keeping the costs down other than Steve's interesting idea regarding the conversion kits at varying levels aimed at extant FC cars. If I missed your suggestions as to how to keep the costs down I apologize.

[Lee Stohr]

Russ, Well said. A good driver can easily overcome a slight equipment deficit.
Last Friday at Portland, John Hill ran his DSR with a $900 junkyard motor I bought from Matt Conrad a year ago. John was only .2sec off his track record with his $12,000 Loynings motor.