F1000 CRB Rules Proposal

[Purple Frog]

The simple fact that there are many many more 600cc wrecked bikes makes it real attractive. I think the problem lies in that those of us watching this from the FC viewpoint don't want to slow down with less power. The cost to develop either platform being virtually even, we always opted to go with the faster choice.

That said, with a minimum weight around 800 pounds and maybe no wings, it would be quite a little fun piece.

[John LaRue]

that such a unique non-winged 600cc alternative power plant might bring some excitement and new blood to the FF ranks thus preserving and perhaps even expanding the size of the class and a place for the beloved Kent engined cars to race in perpetuity.

Depsite the fact that FF is in the top third of participation numbers from the accounting provided us by the SCCA it still is without dispute that the turnout at most events is pathetic and provides little competition. As someone diligenlty pointed out in the FF area, this is perhaps more of a statement as to the health of SCCA racing and the proliferation of classes than FF itself. It will take little to topple the numbers in FF, the acceptance of F1000, the future development of F600 as a seperate stand alone class each will take their measured toll.

[planet6racing]

If it's not technically interesting, it had better be cheap.

If it's not cheap, it had better be technically interesting.

And this is the whole reason I'm attracted to the class. It won't be cheap (I'm planning a ground up build), but the whole appeals of a personal F1 car including paddle shifting is what is really driving the attraction to me.

[RobLav]

Well, I did it. I just bought a 2006 R1 engine with 250 miles on it.

Although the Kawasaki and Suzuki seem to show slightly more HP, I looked closely at the torque and HP curves, and if I keep the revs up, the R1 should be competitive. Getting rid of that EXUP exhaust system will undoubtedly help too.

Now to decide whether or not to convert the RF99 or find something else.

Now, if Stohr, Citation, Phoenix, or Van Diemen would offer a chassis... or a kit for the rear of later VD's for about $4 grand - I have the quaiffe.

[Anonymous Lee]

"Yeah, "It's a "Jump to Conclusions mat". You see, you have this MAT, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO."

"That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom"

"Yes, this is horrible, this idea."

great movie

[Art Smith]

with the two shoes that were dropped last week I'm almost afraid to
to ask more questions.

the September Fastrack includes:
Item 2. Based on member input the CRB has revised the proposed
F1000 rules as follows. Note: the dimensions and diagrams have
been omitted.

why were the dimensions and diagrams omitted; the rules package
is useless without them? more surprises on the way??

the last time the entire draft was published there was one (1)
diagram and one (1) table of dimensions, what's included in the
added diagram(s)??

will all cars homologated for competition in F1000 be compliant with
all provisions of section 18 as currently written: for instance, main
and front roll hoop material, OD, and wall thickness; main hoop
attachment geometry to the chassis; roll hoop forward bracing
material, OD, and wall thickness??

is the stress-bearing floor pan/undertray currently "permitted"
(hopefully to soon be required!!) between the front bulkhead to the
rear roll hoop bulkhead: a.) structure; b.) bodywork; c.) something
else; or d.) none of the above??

when will the final rules package (including table(s) of dimensions &
diagram(s)) be available to the general membership and/or others not
on your current manufactors list??


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

http://www.motorsport.com/news/artic...209268&FS=IMSA
http://www.gloriacars.com/indexen.htm
http://www.racingconcepts.info/spead...ical-specs.htm

[Wren]

F600 would be a great class for recent FSAE college grads (as well as many other people).

Recent alumni of 2 FSAE cars and 1 Mini-Baja that has been watching this whole thing develop.

I'm currently racing a vee b/c that is where the fields are(I won't consider a spec class or a tin-top). I'm interested in F1000, but if there's not someone to race with, I don't want to tow for hours to run a time trial with myself. If I thought that I would have 3 guys to race with at every event, I would consider building/converting one, or at least starting my design. I've already picked out some of my parts mentally.

Make the class friendly to converted FC's and I may still end up there.

[carnut169]

For most events in the SE next year you will be racing Scott Woodruff in a converted FA and myself in a rf96 VD/ F1000. Maybe more?

Build it and lets race!

[jerry freeman]

I have a converted super vee with a 1000. I tried to test and
race in Nashville with no success. If I ever get the bugs worked
out there will be another car at most of the same races as
Sean and Scott. I should have a legal F1000 car by the end of
next year.

[Art Smith]

the September Fastrack includes:
Item 2. Based on member input the CRB has revised the proposed
F1000 rules as follows. Note: the dimensions and diagrams have
been omitted.

why were the dimensions and diagrams omitted; the rules package
is useless without them? more surprises on the way??

the last time the entire draft was published there was one (1)
diagram and one (1) table of dimensions, what's included in the
added diagram(s)??

will all cars homologated for competition in F1000 be compliant with
all provisions of section 18 as currently written? section 18 as
currently written includes provisions for the club to approve
non-compliant designs with NO criteria for approval provided; not
equivalent safety performance; not equivalent structural performance
with analysis signed by a licensed structural engineer, .........
see attached high-lighted image of p.99 of current GCR. section 18
as currently written requires use of DOM, seamless, alloy tubing with
required OD and wall thickness determined by vehicle weight. note
that alloy is defined as SAE 4130 making anything else non-compliant.
assuming a car that meets the draft minimum weight of 1000lbs,
section 18 as currently written requires use of 1.375" OD x 0.095" wall
DOM, seamless, alloy tubing. see attached high-lighted image of
p.100 of current GCR.

NOTE: the minimum tolearnce provisions in paragraph D
should really be deleted as it is misleading at best;
there is NO tolerance on a MINIMUM requirement!!
the competitor's solution needs to account for
tolerances in achieving the MINIMUM.

assuming for discussion purposes that someone wanted to use
22mm x 2mm tubing for the main and front hoops, whats's the likely
outcome? the 22mm x 2mm tubing weighs approximately 33% less
per foot and produces approximately 20% less aerodynamic drag
per foot compared to the tubing required in section 18. when made
with SAE 4130 the 22mm x 2mm tubing also has approximately 33%
less capability in both tension & compression and almost 50% less in
bending!! while peformance could likely be improved by welding two
parallell 22mm x 2mm tubes together with plates on both sides, that
solution would probably also be non-compliant with the "stressed panel"
provisons in the last draft. see attached section properties image. two
other key requirements driving both resulting safety AND performance
found in the current version of section 18 are: main roll hoop attachment
to the chassis (see attached highlighted image of p.110 of current GCR)
and forward braing requirement for both the main and front hoops (see
attached highlighted image of p.111 of current GCR). if the rules
published in the GCR do not apply to all competitors, the club has no
rules.

is the stress-bearing floor pan/undertray currently "permitted"
(hopefully to soon be required!!) between the front bulkhead to the
rear roll hoop bulkhead: a.) structure; b.) bodywork; c.) something
else; or d.) none of the above??

when will the final rules package (including table(s) of dimensions &
diagram(s)) be available to the general membership and/or others not
on your current manufactors list??


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Dave Gomberg]

when will the final rules package (including table(s) of dimensions &
diagram(s)) be available to the general membership and/or others not
on your current manufactors list??

The next (probably final) version will be in the October Fastrack (available September 20 on the SCCA web site).

Dave

P.S. There is no "current manufacturers list".

[Lee Stohr]

Oh come on Dave, let's keep the conspiracy theories flying

[Art Smith]

Dave-

thanks for the schedule update. must have the nomenclature wrong on the list; probably should have guessed something innocous like "XYZ advisory committee".


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Stan Clayton]

Art,

If you refer to the annual list which appears in SportsCar magazine, I believe that is a product produced by them, and not the Club. That said, the following manufacturers have expressed interest in F-1000.

Carbir
Gloria
Phoenix
Stohr
Van Diemen
and others I can't recall at the moment...

Anyone interested in their products are encouraged to contact them.

Regards, Stan

[Art Smith]

Stan-

thanks for the list of manufacturers that have expressed intested; no real surprises,
the ususal suspects.

Dave's post addressed the primary point of my post and update, when will a complete
set of F1000 rules be availble for review and have the needed changes been incorporated.
as someone who believes F1000 will be dominated by aerodynamics, it's my view the
union of minimum safety, structural, and aerodynamic rules remianed in a pathetic
condition in the last public draft. I'm anxious to determine: what, if any, of the historic
safety requirements have added back into the draft, how many of the undefined terms
have been deleted or defined in a technically complete, correct, & internally consistent
manner, what has been included in the diagram(s) and table(s) that are apparantly
intended to convey the bulk of the bodywork and aerodynamic rules; and how many
problems, in any, were created making the required improvements.

with the innovative fast track treatment the F1000 rules package has received to date,
there is no reason for the membership or the potential manufacturers to have to accept
anything less than a first class rules package: technically complete, accurate, &
internally consistent; gramatically correct; and objectively verifiable. an objectively
verifiable set of rules is the absolute minimum requirement if the F1000 rules are going
to apply to all that choose to compete. all the undefined terms (ie: venturi sections, ....)
and poorly worded requirements (ie: are aero-elasitic effects excluded from the
restrictions of "moveable aerodynamic devices") have to deleted or rewritten to higher
standards. historicly poorly written rules is not an acceptable rationale for anything
less than a first class rules package for F1000.

well written rules make it possible for even small firms to compete with the giants on a
fair and level playing field. can you imagine rumors flying about the possibility of the
Club using a potentially illegal process to change the rules so a small manufacturer's
clearly illegal cars were legal for competition at this year's RunOffs?? what's the
chances of a small firm getting a main and front hoop made with non-4130 28mm x 2mm
tubing homologated?? all the rules have to apply to all that compete or the club has no
rules!!

the attached figure shows two orientations of a "flat bottom" compliant with the flat
bottom rules in the last F1000 draft. the top figure shows +1.000" up in both the front
and rear from the assumed 1.000" ground clearance. the lower figure shows a pitched
orientation with the front at the assumed minimum ground clearance and the rear at
slightly more than 5.25" up in the rear. while the figures were drawn for discussion
purposes only, the needed parametric CFD analysis to optimize the five variables
present is a fairly striaghtforward task. can compliance with the latest version of the
rules be objectively verified for both figures??

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Stan Clayton]

Sorry I haven't answered sooner, Art, but let's go through some of your questions.

As noted, the next Fastrack (due out on the 20th) will have the latest version of the rules, including the diagram and table of dimensions. FWIW, two dimensions have been added; "P", requiring a minimum depth of 20 cm for sidepods, if present, and the max rear diffuser width is restricted to 95 cm. The latter dimension got dropped somewhere along the line, but is now explicit.

Numerous "happies-to-glads" were made for consistency with the rest of the GCR. However, the undertray remains permitted, not required. I know that you feel this is a violation of "historic safety requirements", but I beg to differ. F-1000 is NOT Formula Ford. Nor is it Formula Continental. It is a new class, and as a new class, there is no "historic requirement"; there is only what we put in the GCR. Furthermore, undertrays are optional in Formula Atlantic, Formula Mazda, Formula Vee, Formula 500, Formula S, as well as ASR, CSR and DSR, and they will remain optional in Formula 1000. Logic would dictate that folks take advantage of this option, but I will not force it upon them.

Nor have we produced a "first class rules package: technically complete, accurate, & internally consistent; gramatically correct; and objectively verifiable." What we have is very similar to what you've seen, with incremental refinements.

well written rules make it possible for even small firms to compete with the giants on a fair and level playing field. can you imagine rumors flying about the possibility of the Club using a potentially illegal process to change the rules so a small manufacturer's clearly illegal cars were legal for competition at this year's RunOffs?? what's the chances of a small firm getting a main and front hoop made with non-4130 28mm x 2mm tubing homologated?? all the rules have to apply to all that compete or the club has no rules!!

This is too abstruse for me to decipher, Art. You will have to be more explicit.

The one major area of your post I heartily agree with is the subject of underside aero, as I too feel that the present verbiage is insufficiently defined. If you are familiar with my earlier posts, you may have noted that I advocated adapting FIA's wording for undertrays to preclude the inventiveness displayed in your illustration. My view did not prevail, however, so Dave Gomberg has expanded the relevant section to forestall most experimentation.

Regards, Stan

Edit: I forgot to mention that we added provisions for composite and/or metallic front and rear impact attenuation structures.

[carnut169]

I look forward to reading the rules in Fast track.

Thanks for all of your effort.

[Charles Warner]

I think we should give Art and Richard a dictionary each at 20 paces and let them fight it out.

[ianashdown]

Stan,

I know this is a small point, and very late in the day given that the definitive rules are due out in a few days, but what is the thought behind restricting 4 piston calipers to having all pistons the same size? I thought the idea of having different size pistons was to even out pad wear and minimize pad taper. I'm not sure how many manufacturers of 4 piston calipers make them with the same size pistons - maybe they do, I've never looked for them.

Just interested in the why......

Ian

[Stan Clayton]

Ian,

The framers of the proposition wanted to discourage high priced Atlantic-style differential piston calipers, and most economy 4-pot calipers use the same bore, so that's where the rule comes from. Wilwood Dynalite calipers have proved capable and reliable in DSRs, so I'd recommend looking at those. They're very inexpensive, as well, with a retail price of about $150...and even less on eBay.

Other folks may be able to recommend other calipers to consider.

Regards, Stan

[ianashdown]

Hi Stan,

Thanks for explaining. I'm not sure there's a saving here if you pads taper more quickly. You could be spending more on Pads as an ongoing expense.

I've looked at Willwood. I afraid I found them spectacularly unhelpful. I requested drawings, 2D or 3D CAD models or something that I could use to design an upright around. They absolutely refused to provide any more information than was available on their web-site. This information is inadequate in my opinion to do a thorough design. Brembo and AP on the other hand were very willing to send me 3D CAD models. They may be more expensive, but I know who I want to work with!

Ian

[R. Pare]

Ian: the quick solution to dealing with pad taper for most guys is to just fip the pads side to side in the caliper every session or so, depending on how fast the taper progresses.

[Lee Stohr]

F1000 is approved as a National class next year and the rule accepting only the top 24 classes has been dropped - so could F1000 be a Runoffs class in 2007 ?

[RussMcB]

I would guess yes.

Is that the way it happened with Spec Miata? Did they get a Runoffs race in their first year?

F1000 is approved as a National class next year and the rule accepting only the top 24 classes has been dropped - so could F1000 be a Runoffs class in 2007 ?

[Dave Gomberg]

F1000 is approved as a National class next year and the rule accepting only the top 24 classes has been dropped - so could F1000 be a Runoffs class in 2007 ?

No. F1000 has no 2006 entries, so it is not elgible for the 2007 Runoffs. T3 had the lowest numbers for 2006 - the BoD made an exception for T3 for one year only. They did not rescind the entire rule - the public statement says they will use the 24-race Runoffs format starting the following year (2007 entries determining the classes for the 2008 Runoffs). If (a huge if at this point) F1000 produces enough entries in 2007, it could run in 2008.

Dave

[Marshall Mauney]

Is that the way it happened with Spec Miata? Did they get a Runoffs race in their first year?

SM got a race in their first year as a National class, but they achieved national status the old-fashioned way - by having enough regional entrants nationwide to meet the GCR requirements. This took a couple of years.

[Stan Clayton]

Marshall is correct, but it took building more than 1000 SMs to get their numbers high enough to qualify the "old fashioned way". One can buy old 1st gen Miatas for $2k-$3k. The MazdaSpeed kit costs about $3500. A few weekends of bolting stuff in and one can be on track in a month for well under 10-grand in a SM. AFAIK, that isn't going to happen with any foreseeable formula class.

Furthermore, SM is the ONLY class ever to make National status by fulfilling the old requirements. Not Formula Ford. Not Continental, Vee or Spec Racer. What really happened in the old days is that the BoD simply granted National status to new classes that looked like they had legs and the potential to grow. Oh, Formula Mazda came close, making the number in 3 of the top 5 Divisions for one year, but even then the BoD simply "made it so" starting in 1998.

So the old paradigm wasn't working well enough for the club to grow. This was demonstrated by T1. When the BoD approved T1 there were only a handful of cars, but the manufacturers said they'd support the Category and numbers grew strongly after that. I guess the lesson from that is that folks need to know a class has a realistic chance before they're willing to plunk down lots of money, otherwise its more of a crap-shoot.

That's my 2-cents...

Stan

[Dennis McCarthy]

So is the new "Rule" when a the BOD decides we need, want, or whatever a new class it they simply vote on it and we have a new class? I'm a bit confused as to how the rules actually work.

[Marshall Mauney]

I guess the lesson from that is that folks need to know a class has a realistic chance before they're willing to plunk down lots of money, otherwise its more of a crap-shoot.an

So what's the deal with FSCCA?

(Ducking and running for cover....)

[Stan Clayton]

No need to duck-n-run, Marshall...it's a great question!

As soon as the details of the new paradigm are published I should not be surprised to receive a bag full of emails from F-SCCA guys requesting their own National class. After all, there are more than 100 of the cars, and from what I hear most of them are actively racing. Furthermore, I ask myself rhetorically how the BoD could say no...after all, they created the class, and they recently created new National classes with only a handful of cars in existence...much less 100. At least the F-SCCA guys have solid numbers. Heck, there are more of them than there are active CSRs, and that class seems to have no lasting difficulty retaining its National status.

If one looks at SCCA's final participation numbers, they would need only about 200 National entrants to secure themselves a place at the Runoffs the following year (assuming T3 and GTL don't 'up the ante'). Since each driver who wants to go to the Runoffs needs to enter 4 races minimum, making the Big Show with that many cars should be a piece of cake.

Stan

[glenn cooper]

I read Lee's post above about F1000 being granted National class status for 2007.
Warning - Possible ignorant question: Has it even been a Regional only class in '06?
I would have to say if it's Nat'l bound, Im now leaning VERY heavilly towards this...
Can anyone confirm this?
Thanks, GC

[glenn cooper]

Stan, not to split hairs or anything, but the "undertray" listed as optional for the FM is actually an engine belly pan, no?
By undertray, are we referencing an actual floor? The Speads DSR I ran earlier in the year only had some kind of plastic composite sheet thing beneath the frame.
I remember a few years back at VIR a red flag situation came about due to some poor guys foot going through the floor of his CF, becoming trapped. It sounded pretty uncool, as well as highly avoidable...
Thanks, GC

[carnut169]

FF- Formula Ford
FC- Formula Continental

F1- Formula 1000?

Anyone know? I've got some decals to order!

[Stan Clayton]

Has it [F-1000] even been a Regional only class in '06?

No, F-1000 was never a Regional class. The new paradigm is that new classes are either National or Regional-Only from their inception, and the CRB recommended F-1000 as a National class. If the BoD agrees, it will be National from November 1st, and eligible to compete for a slot in the 2008 Runoffs. Build you car, Coop, and come race it!

Stan, not to split hairs or anything, but the "undertray" listed as optional for the FM is actually an engine belly pan, no?

No, the engine compartment belly pan (section F.17.G.) is a separate piece. Look at section F.17.D., on page FCS-72 of the 2006 GCR, which reads, "The aluminum undertray may be replaced with a stressbearing undertray, minimum of eighteen (18) gauge steel. This undertray shall be attached to the frame by welding, bonding, or by rivets or threaded fasteners. [Emphasis added.]

Sean, yer killin' me, bro! Please, PLEASE...someone put F1 stickers on their car...!

Stan

[A36Pilot]

Did you see the Katherine Legge crash at the Grand Prix of Road America last Sunday? Coming into a corner, it appeared all or a portion of the rear wing separated, causing her to lose traction and spinning backwards into the wall at 130 to 180 mph (depending on who you talk to). The car completely disintegrated with the engine and gearbox separating from the car. What was left intact was the tub with Katherine in it. Thankfully, she was OK with only a sore knee (from inpacting the side of the tub).

As a newbie, the strength of the tub/cockpit as proposed by the CRB has always been a concern for me. Some have argued that having a kelar/carbon composite tub would only add to the already burgeoning cost of running in this class. But after watching her crash, maybe it is time again to rethink this issue. If in fact she was going only 130 mph, and since I anticipate speeds in F1000 to approach or exceed this speed, it may be a healthy idea to adopt safer cockpits.

William Gow

[ianashdown]

I think you'll find the speed of a CART car at that point is on the far side of 165mph. Not to say that was her impact speed. She has a fair distance to travel mostly on pavement in which she will have scrubbed of some speed due to being sideways during the spin. None the less, a huge accident! I watched, fearing the worst, but was very happy to see she emerged alive, let alone virtually un-injured.

I think this accident and many others speak volumes as to the safety of these cars. I have to say I have felt for many years that I would not drive in anything other than a carbon chassis car. It's like knowing the Full face helmet is out there and continuing to wear you old puddin-basin helmet! What's the old saying? If you have a $50 head, wear a $50 helmet! Something like that. Well what's the cost of a carbon chassis? $15K. I know what it would cost to build, and I think I could sell them for $15K and do alright. I know my body is worth more that $15K - to me anyway - and maybe if sold by the pound! My life is worth a lot more than that, especially if I believe the Life Insurance salesmen.

I had great interest in this catagory right up until it was decided no carbon chassis. These cars will not be much slower than an F3 car. Can you imagine that series using a tube frame?

There was an opportunity to make this series Open Wheel DSR, that would have been way cool!

Ian

[formulasuper]

There was an opportunity to make this series Open Wheel DSR, that would have been way cool!

Ian

Yes, way cool & way beyond the intention of this class. If someone wants DSR speeds with the safety of carbon tubs FA is still a class.

[carnut169]

or build whatever you want and run FS.

[Mike B]

...by yourself.